Am I being a "hack" ? (Gas station)

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hardworkingstiff

Senior Member
Location
Wilmington, NC
Intrinsically safe circuits going to the tanks for inventory probes and sensors is allowed to be any of the wiring methods suitable for unclassified locations, including those covered by Chapter 7 and Chapter 8. (504.20)

504.70 says the seals (boundary seals) don't need to be explosion proof or flameproof, but need to be identified for the purpose of minimizing passage of gases, vapors, or dusts under normal operating conditions. The exception says Seals shall not be required for enclosures that contain only intrinsically safe apparatus, except as required by 501.15(F)(3) {which deals with drainage in processes which you don't have at gas stations}.

I was speaking with another gas station electrician today and told him as far as I was concerned, running PVC to the intrinsically safe equipment and using PVC boxes was fine. Sealing could be done for the boundaries by using ductseal in the conduits.

He was adamant that I was off base and a hack. I figured I?d throw this out for comments.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
Intrinsically safe circuits going to the tanks for inventory probes and sensors is allowed to be any of the wiring methods suitable for unclassified locations, including those covered by Chapter 7 and Chapter 8. (504.20)

504.70 says the seals (boundary seals) don't need to be explosion proof or flameproof, but need to be identified for the purpose of minimizing passage of gases, vapors, or dusts under normal operating conditions. The exception says Seals shall not be required for enclosures that contain only intrinsically safe apparatus, except as required by 501.15(F)(3) {which deals with drainage in processes which you don't have at gas stations}.

I was speaking with another gas station electrician today and told him as far as I was concerned, running PVC to the intrinsically safe equipment and using PVC boxes was fine. Sealing could be done for the boundaries by using ductseal in the conduits.

He was adamant that I was off base and a hack. I figured I?d throw this out for comments.
Click to expand...

Veeder Root or Incon instructions will get in your way, not sure about others?
 
wallyworld said:
Veeder Root or Incon instructions will get in your way, not sure about others?
Click to expand...

That's a confusing statement since the following comes from their (V/R) manual.

The following information is for general reference and is not intended to replace recommended National Electric
Code (NEC) procedures. It is important for the installer to understand that electrical equipment and wiring located
in Class I, Division 1 and 2 installations shall comply with the latest appropriate Articles found in the National​
Electric Code (NFPA 70) and the Automotive and Marine Service Station Code (NFPA 30A).
Click to expand...
I believe that says the electrician needs to understand the NEC.



The conduit must be properly sealed in accordance with the latest National Electric Code (NFPA 70) and the
Automotive and Marine Service Station Code (NFPA 30A) since they pass from a Class I, Division 1 or 2​
hazardous area into a non-hazardous area.
Click to expand...
Again, NEC.



NOTE: PVC conduit is an acceptable alternate where accepted by local codes
Click to expand...

This note was put in because originally (back in the 80's) V/R required GRS conduit. When they went to requiring shielded cable, they dropped the GRS requirement.

IMO, V/R has pretty much said the conduit does not matter, just install per NEC. They even allow direct bury cable and not junction boxes (just seal packs).
NOTE: Installation of the Direct Burial System can only be done in those locations where local codes permit the​

use of buried cable instead of conduit, and epoxy splices instead of junction boxes.
Click to expand...


So, it's not the V/R manual that has problems with the installation and it's not the NEC that has the problem. Any reason why PVC and ductseal cannot be used?
 
hardworkingstiff said:
That's a confusing statement since the following comes from their (V/R) manual.

I believe that says the electrician needs to understand the NEC.



Again, NEC.




This note was put in because originally (back in the 80's) V/R required GRS conduit. When they went to requiring shielded cable, they dropped the GRS requirement.

IMO, V/R has pretty much said the conduit does not matter, just install per NEC. They even allow direct bury cable and not junction boxes (just seal packs).


So, it's not the V/R manual that has problems with the installation and it's not the NEC that has the problem. Any reason why PVC and ductseal cannot be used?
Click to expand...


I'd have to look at the instructions again but I thought they required rigid and EYS fittings. I've seen PVC boxes in the field but never PVC conduit into a sump.

I agree with direct bury and no boxes only seal packs. In Maine thats a lousy install, maybe not in NC
 
wallyworld said:
I agree with direct bury and no boxes only seal packs. In Maine thats a lousy install, maybe not in NC
Click to expand...

The point was conduit and boxes are not required by V/R. I believe I've hit a nerve, just like the other electrician today. Hummm, I might be a hack, or others are not willing to ask why or think outside of the box.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
The point was conduit and boxes are not required by V/R. I believe I've hit a nerve, just like the other electrician today. Hummm, I might be a hack, or others are not willing to ask why or think outside of the box.
Click to expand...

Hit a nerve? TF, What ever you can get inspected is fine with me. The difference might be between the climates of where you are and where I am. Manholes full of ice and direct bury aren't easy to deal with in the winter. Maybe you don't as much service work as I do?
 
Last edited:
I found an installation manual for Incon ts1001, it says for conduit, RMC. The manual is a couple years old so maybe its changed? Incon uses thwn for its sensors, shielded for probes
 
Forgetting the equipment install, I don't have time to think about that, I do take exception with the duct seal.

From and Inspectors POV - "be identified for the purpose of minimizing passage of gases, vapors, or dusts"

From Ideal's site:

Features
  • Seals around junction boxes, flashings and service entrances
  • Permanently soft, non-toxic compound can be painted immediately after application
  • Won't adversely affect other plastic materials or corrode metals

This doesn't seem to say that it is "identified" fpr gases, vap... Also, notice it says "around" JB, flashings, and SE's and not "inside". It doesn't seem that they intend the product to be installed inside a conduit

I looked on UL's site for a listing and there doesn't appear to be one.

I would say that it is not allowable looking at the "letter of the law" POV.

From an Installers POV - It also would be a bad idea to put anything into a conduit that can't be retrieved, like a listed seal or wedge, etc. The seal can and probably will fall inside the conduit, causing complications if alterations or additions are needed.

Personal POV - Most electricians that I know will call that a hack installation. I try not to be so mean and phrase things in that way. I would say that I don't think that it is right and I wouldn't install it that way, but I am really picky being OCD (Obsessive-Compulsive not Over-current Device:grin:)

As far as you being a hack, I definitely say NO! A hack wouldn't care enough to come to a place like this for feedback/advice.
 
cycotcskir said:
From and Inspectors POV - "be identified for the purpose of minimizing passage of gases, vapors, or dusts"

From Ideal's site:


Features
  • Seals around junction boxes, flashings and service entrances
  • Permanently soft, non-toxic compound can be painted immediately after application
  • Won't adversely affect other plastic materials or corrode metals
This doesn't seem to say that it is "identified" fpr gases, vap... Also, notice it says "around" JB, flashings, and SE's and not "inside". It doesn't seem that they intend the product to be installed inside a conduit

I looked on UL's site for a listing and there doesn't appear to be one.

I would say that it is not allowable looking at the "letter of the law" POV.
Click to expand...

OK, your points are well made. A few years back, Gilbarco and Bennett dropped the explosion-proof junction boxes in their dispensers. Gilbarco actually has/had an installation instruction (I don't know if they changed it) that called for packing a conduit and pouring "Chico" in the conduit nipple as it entered their (at about 4' high) wiring compartment.

What would your thoughts be on pouring a conduit (let's say about 5/8" thick) where it enters a box for sealing out vapors but not being concerned with it being explosion proof or flame proof?

I can see installing a sealoff at the building (boundry seal) and pouring it in the traditional way, but using them in the tank field (at enclosures containing only intrinsically safe circuits) seems like a waste of money (and not required).
 
hardworkingstiff said:
OK, your points are well made. A few years back, Gilbarco and Bennett dropped the explosion-proof junction boxes in their dispensers. Gilbarco actually has/had an installation instruction (I don't know if they changed it) that called for packing a conduit and pouring "Chico" in the conduit nipple as it entered their (at about 4' high) wiring compartment.
Click to expand...
.

Which product was this for? I'd like to see the actual wording. Assuming that the wording is exact, I would have to disagree. I think others may differ in opinion, though.

 UL and cUL Listed for use with 1⁄2" to 2" Copper Crouse-Hinds sealing
fittings only.

This is from the Chico .pdf found here: http://www.crouse-hinds.com/catalog/PDFS/00193.pdf

I would hazard to guess that all sealing compounds would have a similar instruction. The instruction on the compound doesn't allow for the installation and therefore would fail an inspection.

One big difference I see is that the Chico X has the hub of the seal-off to keep itself from falling into the conduit and the conduit wouldn't.

Of course we are now talking about a (semi)permanently installed seal. One could argue that debris falling into the conduit as a result of compound removal will not happen. I do think that it would be difficult to get a good enough seal with the Chico X to hold the Chico A in place until hardening.

hardworkingstiff said:
What would your thoughts be on pouring a conduit (let's say about 5/8" thick) where it enters a box for sealing out vapors but not being concerned with it being explosion proof or flame proof?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't seem to be listed for such use. Same as above.

hardworkingstiff said:
I can see installing a sealoff at the building (boundry seal) and pouring it in the traditional way, but using them in the tank field (at enclosures containing only intrinsically safe circuits) seems like a waste of money (and not required).
Click to expand...

Waste is subjective. I like to use the item that is best for the situation. It seems to me that a $15-$30 per seal-off isn't that much for a job that I know will pass inspection, looks good, and works better than required (code being a bare minimum).
 
hardworkingstiff said:
OK, your points are well made. A few years back, Gilbarco and Bennett dropped the explosion-proof junction boxes in their dispensers. Gilbarco actually has/had an installation instruction (I don't know if they changed it) that called for packing a conduit and pouring "Chico" in the conduit nipple as it entered their (at about 4' high) wiring compartment.
).
Click to expand...

Wayne has the same thing, they send a corrogated foam piece to wrap around the wires, shove it in the machined nipple and then you pour it. I've done it a hundred times, done Gilbarco also.
Seems to me its manufacturers instructions, not sure how that would fail an inspection.

One other thing, junction boxes are an option now, they can order the pump with boxes if they want
 
The only way I know of to construct a seal "identified for the purpose of minimizing passage of gases, vapors, or dusts under normal operating conditions" is to use an EYS type sealoff with the Chico compound and make sure you follow the instructions on both. Functionally duct seal, silicone, or spray foam would perform this function, but they are not identified or listed for the purpose.
 
wallyworld said:
Seems to me its manufacturers instructions, not sure how that would fail an inspection.
Click to expand...

Manufacturers instructions can't trump Code, but if they utilize a compound listed for that purpose and location, then there is room for debate with the inspector.

I still don't like the potential of debris falling into the conduit, but that is a personal issue. Ever had one of the other trades pour some pebbles down a pipe? The insulation doesn't hold up so well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top