Seal off required?
- Thread starter sketchy
- Start date
- Status
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
Re: Seal off required?
If you have no couplings or fittings in the conduit where it passes through a classifed location then no, you don't need sealoffs (otherwise, yes you do).
Most gas stations should allow you to route the conduit so you stay out of the classified location. The classified locations are really not that large.
[ May 19, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: hardworkingstiff ]
If you have no couplings or fittings in the conduit where it passes through a classifed location then no, you don't need sealoffs (otherwise, yes you do).
Most gas stations should allow you to route the conduit so you stay out of the classified location. The classified locations are really not that large.
[ May 19, 2005, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: hardworkingstiff ]
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Seal off required?
If any part of your conduit passes under a classified area, then a seal is required within 10' of the point where the conduit emerges from the ground. See 518.8 in the 2005 code.
Don
If any part of your conduit passes under a classified area, then a seal is required within 10' of the point where the conduit emerges from the ground. See 518.8 in the 2005 code.
Don
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
Re: Seal off required?
Would you comment on 501.15(A)(4) exception 1
and 501.15(B)(4) exception 1
This is what we used to substantiate my earlier comments. I left out the 12" (oops).
I did notice that 2005 edition has wording changed in 514.8 as compared to 2002. Getting interesting.
[ May 20, 2005, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: hardworkingstiff ]
I assume you mean 514.8
Would you comment on 501.15(A)(4) exception 1
and 501.15(B)(4) exception 1
This is what we used to substantiate my earlier comments. I left out the 12" (oops).
I did notice that 2005 edition has wording changed in 514.8 as compared to 2002. Getting interesting.
[ May 20, 2005, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: hardworkingstiff ]
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Seal off required?
hardworkingstiff,
You are correct that my code citation should have been 514.8. I think that yours should be 501.5, not 501.15.
As far as the sections that you cited, applying to this question, under the 2002 code, I agree that the sealoffs would not be required if the conditions set forth in the exceptions are met. I think that under the 2005 code that changes. The rule in 514.8 specifically requires the sealoffs if any part of the conduit system is below a classified area. It is my opinion that the exceptions in Article 501 do not modify the specific requirements in Article 514.
Don
hardworkingstiff,
You are correct that my code citation should have been 514.8. I think that yours should be 501.5, not 501.15.
As far as the sections that you cited, applying to this question, under the 2002 code, I agree that the sealoffs would not be required if the conditions set forth in the exceptions are met. I think that under the 2005 code that changes. The rule in 514.8 specifically requires the sealoffs if any part of the conduit system is below a classified area. It is my opinion that the exceptions in Article 501 do not modify the specific requirements in Article 514.
Don
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
Re: Seal off required?
Don,
I think the exception is 501.5 in 2002 and has moved to 501.15 in 2005. 514.8 has changed from 2002 to 2005. I agree with your interpretation of the way the 2005 code is written, but I have to wonder if that was the intent of the code writing committee. If it was, it really does not seem that logical. What happened between 2002 and 2005 to cause this change? Gas stations are now installing containment sumps, double wall piping, sensors, all in order to keep leakage from occurring. The chance of fuel getting to an underground conduit is less now than it ever has been.
Either way, it is still pretty easy to route the conduits so they stay out of the hazardous location at a gas station as they (classified locations) are really not that large.
Don,
I think the exception is 501.5 in 2002 and has moved to 501.15 in 2005. 514.8 has changed from 2002 to 2005. I agree with your interpretation of the way the 2005 code is written, but I have to wonder if that was the intent of the code writing committee. If it was, it really does not seem that logical. What happened between 2002 and 2005 to cause this change? Gas stations are now installing containment sumps, double wall piping, sensors, all in order to keep leakage from occurring. The chance of fuel getting to an underground conduit is less now than it ever has been.
Either way, it is still pretty easy to route the conduits so they stay out of the hazardous location at a gas station as they (classified locations) are really not that large.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: Seal off required?
hardworkingstiff,
Yes, the section did move for 2005...I was looking at the 2002, sorry.
I don't know why the seal rule was changed. Compare 514.8 with 515.8. In 515 the exception in 501 would apply because the rule in 515 does not specifically require seals at the point of emergence.
hardworkingstiff,
Yes, the section did move for 2005...I was looking at the 2002, sorry.
I don't know why the seal rule was changed. Compare 514.8 with 515.8. In 515 the exception in 501 would apply because the rule in 515 does not specifically require seals at the point of emergence.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: Seal off required?
This is a classic case of unintended consequences. See Proposal 14-122 of the May 2004 ROP. (Log #1412, pg 1297)
Article 514 is heavily influenced by the Technical Committee on Automotive and Marine Service Stations (NFPA 30A) and they were the originator of this Proposal.
This is a classic case of unintended consequences. See Proposal 14-122 of the May 2004 ROP. (Log #1412, pg 1297)
Article 514 is heavily influenced by the Technical Committee on Automotive and Marine Service Stations (NFPA 30A) and they were the originator of this Proposal.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Seal off required?
You might also take a look at the 2005 Edition of the NFPA NEC handbook at Exhibit 514.5. A run goes under the Div. 2 area around a gasoline pump and Exhibit 514.5 shows a seal at the start and end of the run (bottom of the exhibit). This illustrates that the writers of the Handbook didn't catch the change.
You might also take a look at the 2005 Edition of the NFPA NEC handbook at Exhibit 514.5. A run goes under the Div. 2 area around a gasoline pump and Exhibit 514.5 shows a seal at the start and end of the run (bottom of the exhibit). This illustrates that the writers of the Handbook didn't catch the change.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: Seal off required?
I think it's even better.
The original Proposal referenced 511.8.
The unintended consequence was caused by CMP14's "clarification" - not the Automotive and Marine Service Stations TC's original Proposal.
The TCC said the currently exisitng text (the Exception's reference to Art 352) violates the MOS.
I think everyone's had a slight case of senility with this one.
I think it's even better.
The original Proposal referenced 511.8.
The unintended consequence was caused by CMP14's "clarification" - not the Automotive and Marine Service Stations TC's original Proposal.
The TCC said the currently exisitng text (the Exception's reference to Art 352) violates the MOS.
I think everyone's had a slight case of senility with this one.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Seal off required?
Bob, that happens on every panel. I remember the time that . . .I think everyone's had a slight case of senility with this one.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Re: Seal off required?
I remember it too - I just don't remember when it happenedOriginally posted by charlie:
Bob, that happens on every panel. I remember the time that . . .I think everyone's had a slight case of senility with this one.
- Status