Spot the violation

[weressl]

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.

Grammatical correction of a consistently repeated error is a personal attack? And you take that as an attack on his inteligence? That speaks volumes about yourself and none of me.

 

[weressl]

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.

It was a single comment from me, so I presume 'once more' was directed at somebody else. I thought it may be helpful.

I try to learn form my mistakes and I can not recognize my mistake unless somebody else points them out to me.

English is obviously not my first language and not even the second, so I do have to be careful in my construction of sentences and grammar to make sure that I am understood. On the other hand I came from a culture where open and straightforward speaking was encouraged and appresiated, not taken as demeaning criticism but as factual, open and helpful discourse.

 

[dcspector]

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.

That was uncalled for. No one attacked anyone. Also, no one likes an office snitch "so to speak" We are all grown ups here. Bob iwire can defend himself if he is so compelled to do so, as all of us would.:smile:

 

[M. D.]

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

Not in my opinion,.. The Terminal adapters are not listed for that application,.. and even if the LB is a box you still have to install it properly ,.. this is from QCMZ

FOR USE WITH RIGID NONMETALLIC CONDUIT

Nonmetallic boxes suitable for use with rigid nonmetallic conduit are provided with a marking on the carton to indicate the intended use, such as "For [Specific Type] Conduit." Such boxes, when so marked on the box or carton and provided with installation instructions, are intended for support by the specified conduit.

Such boxes are inherently resistant to atmosphere containing common industrial corrosive agents and will withstand vapors or mists of caustic pickling acids, plating baths, and hydrofluoric and chromic acids. Nonmetallic boxes for use with rigid PVC conduit are suitable for use with wire rated 90?C or less.

 

[LJSMITH1]

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

That pretty much nails the issue right on the head!

When our products are tested at UL, we supply the cable or conduit with the fitting. We instruct UL (where needed) the proper installation procedure and specifiy the use. UL determines what testing program within UL 514B is applicable, and proceeds to run the samples through these tests.

If the product is modified in any way after it has received a listing, and something bad happens (i.e. inspection failure, or worse...), they will not hold the mfr. liable because of the modification. The only way to be sure that a particular product modification or mis-application will not affect the performance of the product, is to have the product evaluated WITH the modification or in the mis-application. Since most folks won't do that on their own, and even more don't even bother contacting the mfr., then all bets are off.

The AHJ has the final call. If they don't feel confortable signing off on a modification, they have the right to defer technical evaluations to a UL field inspector.

I can't believe we are now at 143 posts and this sissue still has two sides! :roll:

 

[wwhitney]

Not in my opinion,.. The Terminal adapters are not listed for that application,..

OK, I guess "knockout" does not include field fabricated holes, so it is a violation of the listing of the TA that you quoted in post #30. That listing also does not permit using a TA with a field punched hole in a metal box, which is surprising. Is there a listed way to connect non-metallic conduit to a field-fabricated hole in a non-metallic box?

and even if the LB is a box you still have to install it properly ,.. this is from QCMZ

What part of the text you quoted has been violated? (Sorry I don't know how to quote within a quote).

Cheers, Wayne

 

[M. D.]

What part of the text you quoted has been violated? (Sorry I don't know how to quote within a quote).

Cheers, Wayne

The installation instructions for an LB.

 

[Karl H]

Grammatical correction of a consistently repeated error is a personal attack? And you take that as an attack on his inteligence? That speaks volumes about yourself and none of me.

Yes sir,It is. Yes sir, I do. Yes sir,It does,and no Sir, I disagree. JMO.

 

[Karl H]

That was uncalled for. No one attacked anyone. Also, no one likes an office snitch "so to speak" We are all grown ups here. Bob iwire can defend himself if he is so compelled to do so, as all of us would.:smile:

I don't work in a office.:smile:

 

[mxslick]

Any chance we can stay on topic before this thread gets locked? :roll:

I still maintain that though some good points have been raised on the hack install of that LB (remember that, guys? ) there is STILL no definitive proof that the modification voided the listing or is in any way unsafe.

ONLY examination by UL for this particular installation will PROVE that the listing has been voided.

Sheesh........

 

[dcspector]

Any chance we can stay on topic before this thread gets locked? :roll:

Well if you go back I am the one that started the debate citing 110.3(B) regarding the application or should I say abuse of the LB in the picture. I actually would like for the mod's to lock this thread if I may be so bold.

 

[M. D.]

http://www.ul.com/regulators/modification.cfm

Field Modification

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.

If a party wishes UL to determine if the modifications made to a UL Listed product comply with UL requirements, the appropriate Field Engineering Service can be initiated to investigate the modifications. This investigation will only be conducted after UL consults with the AHJ to assure that UL's investigation addresses all areas of concern and meets all of the AHJ's needs.

If you have any questions or would like to inquire about a Field Investigation, please contact Regulatory Services.

Field Labeling
Is it permissible to apply a UL Mark in the field?

The application of a UL Mark in the field is only permitted when an inspection is conducted under one of UL�s Field Engineering Services in the presence of a UL representative.

Contact Us

If you have an immediate question or need assistance, please contact Regulatory Ser

If I were the AHJ ,..I would not accept this modification ...

 

[weressl]

http://www.ul.com/regulators/modification.cfm





If I were the AHJ ,..I would not accept this modification ...

I am surprised how wide door UL leaves for the AHJ without having any say-so about the qualification of the AHJ to perform such evaluation. It seems rather negligent to me. Maybe it will change after a legal challange.

 

[LJSMITH1]

I am surprised how wide door UL leaves for the AHJ without having any say-so about the qualification of the AHJ to perform such evaluation. It seems rather negligent to me. Maybe it will change after a legal challange.

Part of the 'problem' is that the UL specifications are relatively static and inflexible. UL 514B has specific requirements for specific fitting styles (i.e. cable, EMT, Rigid, conduit bodies, etc.). The tests are defined and requirements are specified. Comparing fitting field modifications to, let's say, a control panel fabrication, is not an apples to apples comparison. The panels, enclosures, or other similar category items are designed to be drilled, punched, or modified in a way that they are to be used in an installation. The appropriate UL listing takes that into account.

In as far as fittings go, I can tell you that drilling holes in any conduit body (unless otherwise PERMITTED) by the manufacturer, will most certainly void the UL listing and the product warranty. If someone requires 'proof' that this modification is unacceptable, they should contact the manufacturer, who will give them the final decision on acceptance.

One final note as an analogy. We had a customer who received a red tag on an install. They had a 2.5" EMT conduit going into a 2.5" setscrew connector, which was then threaded into a Myers-style hub, which was attached to a panel. The inspector flagged the install because too many connector threads were visible outside the hub (i.e. the connector looked like it was only threaded 1 or 2 turns and not even close to bottoming out). Instead of reworking the EMT, removing the hub, and assembling the setscrew connector into the panel, the contractor elected to unscrew the connector from the hub and CUT OFF about 1" of thread and reassembled the fitting back into the hub (only 1 turn again). The fitting looked like it was screwed in more than it actually was. The inspector figured out what they did and flagged it again - this time for violating the UL listing. At that point the contractor realized that the right way was 1/2 the run needed to be redone. The inspector was very upset from that point forward. Our customer was upset with us for not backing him up with a letter stating his install was acceptable and still covered under the UL Listing...:roll:

 

[mxslick]

Well if you go back I am the one that started the debate citing 110.3(B) regarding the application or should I say abuse of the LB in the picture. I actually would like for the mod's to lock this thread if I may be so bold.

I was referring to the other dialog that was going on just prior to my post, not what you had submitted.

<snip>...The inspector flagged the install because too many connector threads were visible outside the hub (i.e. the connector looked like it was only threaded 1 or 2 turns and not even close to bottoming out). Instead of reworking the EMT, removing the hub, and assembling the setscrew connector into the panel, the contractor elected to unscrew the connector from the hub and CUT OFF about 1" of thread and reassembled the fitting back into the hub (only 1 turn again). The fitting looked like it was screwed in more than it actually was. The inspector figured out what they did and flagged it again - this time for violating the UL listing.<snip>

In that case I would wholeheartedly agree with the call, as in that case BOTH the mechanical and electrical (bonding) integrity of the fitting was compromised.

In the OP's case though, NO ONE has provided conclusive PROOF that the mechanical integrity of that LB is compromised. But again, it is a hack job and there are better solutions to the install than drilling into the side of the LB.

 

[kvncopeland]

According to 314.15, conduit bodies are to be equipped as to prevent moisture from entering.The two male pvc connectors should enter the conduit body with a threaded entry and I doubt that that's the case here.Plus anytime you enter a enclosure from the side or top where moisture can be introduced than you need those little gaskets for you fittings(unless you're using rigid)

 

[Ernest Schwarz]

hummmmmmm....

hummmmmmm....

Why is it assumed that it contains class 1 wiring??.......Being it was on a guard shack could it contain class 2 circuits??.........If it contains class 2 circuits then it would be most likely alarm circuits which use 18 gauge and smaller wiring...

 

[wasasparky]

Lets consider a NEMA 1 "large" junction box.

Does UL test every combination of field punch/conduit entry?
Does the listing mention following NEC guidelines?
Does the box come with instructions indicating placement, quantity, size, etc of field punches?...

 

[dave.mccallum]

I guess, the only reason for rejection is that the UL listing of the LB is lost when it is modified by drilling holes into the side.

 

[jim dungar]

I guess, the only reason for rejection is that the UL listing of the LB is lost when it is modified by drilling holes into the side.

This is only your opinion.

According to UL unless they examine the specific installation, they cannot be definitive in saying the device no longer conforms to the listing standards.

It is up to the AHJ to approve or disapprove the actual installation. As a guide, they may use the UL listing which says the device/equipment met specific standards when it left the factory. For example, a UL listing covers the use of conduit as a raceway, what AHJ judgment must happen when that listed conduit is used as a protective chase instead?