Spot the violation

[Volta]

Sealing Locknuts ? Sealing locknuts are intended for use with threaded rigid metal conduit and intermediate metal conduit with one sealing locknut in the outside or the inside and either an ordinary locknut or sealing locknut on the opposite side of the enclosure for wet locations or liquid-tight applications. Sealing locknuts may also be used with Listed wet location or liquid-tight fittings where so marked on the fitting carton.

I think this shows that when UL "intends" for a product to be used in a particular application, it is not necessarily exlusive, and additional uses may apply.
That is, a MA in a pvc box may not be a violation of the listing of that fitting.

 

[Doug S.]

Well I know I'm diving in late on this one.
1: I believe there are no modifications that specifically contradict the listings stated.
2: That there is no way know that the "body" IS or IS NOT listed, UL specifically states they won't say weather it is or isn't.

So... I would figure that 110.3(B) in a matter of words says that it must be listed, NOT, might be, or might not be.

The question in my mind then falls to the burden of proof. Being that I agree that the NEC is permissive by nature I would say the burden falls on the EC who is "permitted" to modify "stuff", but then in doing so may be required to prove that they maintain their listing. ???

All the blabbering behind me, I don't like the position that puts me (the EC) in...

My 2?
Doug S.

 

[Volta]

So... I would figure that 110.3(B) in a matter of words says that it must be listed, NOT, might be, or might not be.

Maybe not so much 110.3(B) saying 'follow the directions', but 352.6 saying "associated fittings shall be listed".

 

[cycotcskir]

2: That there is no way know that the "body" IS or IS NOT listed, UL specifically states they won't say weather it is or isn't.

I really feel that this is the crux of the discussion. The NEC may be permissive by nature, but UL isn't. They are in the business of saying "yes". That is the whole point of a listing; the "yes" from an outside source. At the moment that source refuses to say "yes" they don't need to say "no". It still falls short.

If "no comment" from UL was satisfactory, then I can get that from them for free by shoving a piece of conduit into an LB and duct taping it. :grin:

 

[Doug S.]

So I was just re-reading 110.3(B), and I guess I should have paid better attention, 110.3(B) isn't actually telling me I have to install listed equipment, but rather telling me that I have to read the directions when doing so...

Notice, no comma or period after ...shall be installed...

So file off the UL and your all set boys...
Install it how ever you darn well please. :grin:

Wow, if I wasn't so slow I coulda' been a lawyer... :-?



Doug S.

 

[iwire]

Really? So what does the "continued validity of the UL certification mark" means

It means they can't say if its valid or not.

It means my modification might go against the listing but they just can't tell without seeing it.

For me, I am not going to continue with this subject with you. You have your opinions, I have mine, I consider myself lucky as the inspectors I work with have a much more open mind then yourself.

 

[jrannis]

http://database.ul.com/cgi-bin/XYV/...n=versionless&parent_id=1073985908&sequence=1

Easy call due to liquid tite fittings come with a plastic washer or O-ring.
I have drilled and tapped a plastic junction box for 1/2" and 3/4" entries on the sides and top but cant remember entering the top with a regular locknut and MA.
I would like to see an LB extension ring on the market!

 

[M. D.]

It means they can't say if its valid or not.

It means my modification might go against the listing but they just can't tell without seeing it.....

Then it is not listed as it is shown in the O.P. So it violates 352.6

 

[ptonsparky]

Wow! I almost missed all of this!
Didn't think such a hack job would warrant more than one glance.

 

[M. D.]

from U.L.scope 514 b

1.3 The requirements in Clause 5.7 cover CONDUIT BODIES for rigid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) conduit. These products are intended to be used with both heavy-wall and thin-wall rigid PVC conduit, ELBOWS, and other bends. The products covered by these requirements are intended to be joined to rigid polyvinyl chloride (PVC) conduit and rigid PVC ELBOWS and other bends in the field by means of a cement that is, or contains, a solvent for polyvinyl chloride.

from carlon

3.0 Testing and Acceptance Criteria:

Conduit and fittings shall be tested in
accordance with the testing requirements
defined in NEMA TC-2, NEMA TC-3 and
UL-651 and 514. The acceptance criteria shall
be given in the same standards.


3.1 All conduit and fittings shall be solvent
cemented in applications in accordance
with instructions from the manufacturer

​

​

.

There is a pile of evidence that suggests that this installation is in violation ​

 

[weressl]

It means they can't say if its valid or not.

It means my modification might go against the listing but they just can't tell without seeing it.

For me, I am not going to continue with this subject with you. You have your opinions, I have mine, I consider myself lucky as the inspectors I work with have a much more open mind then yourself.

It is 'than yourself' not then.

It is not the issue of open mindedness at all. It is a question of having a valid UL listing, after a modification that was not part of the criteria of the original testing of the product, or not. Without examination UL can not state if it is or it is not confirming, therefore the listing is no valid. In legal terms when one fact can not be ascertained that fact should not be taken into consdieration at all, eg. the item should be considered as without listing and never having had a listing. So even if the AHJ affirms that it is confirming UL can still come along and say no it isn't. The AHJ has not authority over UL.

 

[mxslick]

...In legal terms when one fact can not be ascertained that fact should not be taken into consdieration at all, eg. the item should be considered as without listing and never having had a listing...

That same arguement applies in the other direction, i.e. since we cannot POSITIVELY establish for a fact that the listing has been violated, we therefore cannot take into consideration the possibility that the listing HAS been voided.

Now that's why lawyers are so well-regarded. :roll:

 

[iwire]

It is 'than yourself' not then.

I will say this once more, it is an established fact I have trouble with certain spellings. If you want to spend your time pointing it out thats fine, I will simply just start pointing out your own misspellings.

That will make for worthwhile entertainment.

 

[Karl H]

It is 'than yourself' not then.

The only purpose of that statement was to attack Iwire.
To doubt his intelligence. IMO that's uncalled for. An engineer and
a grammarian. You have your opinion and Iwire has his. On this topic I agree
with you. When it comes to attacking members that do not agree with you,
I do not.

 

[M. D.]

Hello ,..people ,.. even if the thing could be altered that way ,... there seems to be no listed way to attach a conduit to it ,... I think even Bob ruled out the TAs ,..and it is not a junction box so junction box adapters are out ,.. then we have UL 514b saying the fitting is to attach by glue ,.. so does it really matter if that fitting still carries it's listing ???

IMO it stopped being an LB fitting when the first hole was drilled

 

[jrannis]

Hello ,..people ,.. even if the thing could be altered that way ,... there seems to be no listed way to attach a conduit to it ,... I think even Bob ruled out the TAs ,..and it is not a junction box so junction box adapters are out ,.. then we have UL 514b saying the fitting is to attach by glue ,.. so does it really matter if that fitting still carries it's listing ???

IMO it stopped being an LB fitting when the first hole was drilled

If it has volume markings its considered a box

 

[M. D.]

If it has volume markings its considered a box

Nope ,.. but you can make a splice in it ... It is still a fitting ..

 

[jrannis]

Nope ,.. but you can make a splice in it ... It is still a fitting ..

Doesn't sound right to me but: This is from the UL site:

Conduit Bodies ? Conduit bodies that are not provided with a volume marking are not intended to enclose splices, taps or devices. Conduit bodies that are provided with a volume marking are covered under Metallic Outlet Boxes (QCIT) or Nonmetallic Outlet Boxes (QCMZ). Conduit bodies Classified for use with specific conduit body covers and conduit body covers Classified for use with specific conduit bodies are covered under Conduit Bodies and Covers Classified for Use with Specified Equipment (QCKW).

 

[wwhitney]

This is from the UL site:

Conduit Bodies ? Conduit bodies that are not provided with a volume marking are not intended to enclose splices, taps or devices. Conduit bodies that are provided with a volume marking are covered under Metallic Outlet Boxes (QCIT) or Nonmetallic Outlet Boxes (QCMZ).

So if the conduit body in the original picture has a volume marked in it, there is no violation, assuming the top entries are properly sealed, and the box fill or sizing is OK?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[acrwc10]

So if the conduit body in the original picture has a volume marked in it, there is no violation, assuming the top entries are properly sealed, and the box fill or sizing is OK?

Cheers, Wayne

Just make sure not to use NM in it.