EMT Fittings in Class II Division II Locations

[cripple]

The question is: Does a Technical Product Certification form a product manufacturer, be used in lieu of a product standard and an NRTL listing.

Section 502.10(B)(4) requires boxes and fittings shall be dust tight, and I could not find an NRTL that does list EMT fittings as being dusttight.
I?ve contacted T&B, Hubbel-Raco, Appleton, and Cooper Industries, for information on the listing of their EMT fittings for dust tight locations. Following are three responses I?ve received.
? Hubbel-Raco has indicated they do not offer any dust tight fittings
? T&B has indicated their EMT fittings are not rated for dust tight applications
? Appleton (Emerson) sent over a Technical Product Certification (TPC) stating ?Appleton and O-Z/Gedney Fittings, Boxes, and Conduit Bodies that are Listed for Wet Locations (Raintight) are suitable for installations in Class II, Division 2 locations where boxes and fittings are to be dust tight. Fittings, Boxes, and Conduit Bodies that are Listed for Wet Locations (Raintight) are able to be considered as Dust tight under the conditions anticipated in a Class II, Division 2 location.?
The standard quoted in there TPC to justify their certification was UL-514B, which section 1.4 of the standard (UL-514(B) states the following: ?These requirements do not cover fittings intended for use in hazardous locations as defined in the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70, the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC), Part I, CSA C22.1, and the Standard for Electrical Installations, NOM-001-SEDE.?

 

[LEO2854]

The question is: Does a Technical Product Certification form a product manufacturer, be used in lieu of a product standard and an NRTL listing.

Section 502.10(B)(4) requires boxes and fittings shall be dust tight, and I could not find an NRTL that does list EMT fittings as being dusttight.
I?ve contacted T&B, Hubbel-Raco, Appleton, and Cooper Industries, for information on the listing of their EMT fittings for dust tight locations. Following are three responses I?ve received.
? Hubbel-Raco has indicated they do not offer any dust tight fittings
? T&B has indicated their EMT fittings are not rated for dust tight applications
? Appleton (Emerson) sent over a Technical Product Certification (TPC) stating ?Appleton and O-Z/Gedney Fittings, Boxes, and Conduit Bodies that are Listed for Wet Locations (Raintight) are suitable for installations in Class II, Division 2 locations where boxes and fittings are to be dust tight. Fittings, Boxes, and Conduit Bodies that are Listed for Wet Locations (Raintight) are able to be considered as Dust tight under the conditions anticipated in a Class II, Division 2 location.?
The standard quoted in there TPC to justify their certification was UL-514B, which section 1.4 of the standard (UL-514(B) states the following: ?These requirements do not cover fittings intended for use in hazardous locations as defined in the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70, the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC), Part I, CSA C22.1, and the Standard for Electrical Installations, NOM-001-SEDE.?

I'm not sure, but how would EMT be approved for this?

 

[rbalex]

EMT is specifically recognized for Class II, Division 2. See Section 502.10(B)(1)(2).

As for the OP question, see Section 500.8(A)(3).

 

[cripple]

EMT Fittings in Class II Division II Locations

I have seen 90.4 and 500.8(A)(3) and can see it being applied to a new product, EMT fitting have been around as long as me and I?m 68 years old. Appleton and O-Z/Gedney is the only manufacturer to provide me with a Technical Product Certification, I just would like to know what make their product any different than the others, and how they justify their TPC.

 

[rbalex]

Section 500.8(A)(3) isn't limited to new applications. Appleton, et al., simply evaluated their "raintight" product as sufficient to meet the "dusttight" requirements necessary for Class II, Division 2.

Note Section 502.10(A)(1)(1) [Division 1] requires threaded RMC or IMC. Section 502.10(B)(1)(2) [Division 2] drops the treading requirement. RMC and IMC had to be repeated in Section 502.10(B)(1)(2) since the "threaded" versions were already covered in 502.10(B)(1)(1). Connections must still be "dusttight" per 502.10(B)(4).

I don't know why other manufactures haven't made the same evaluation; they probably could. Personally, I probably wouldn't have a problem using any manufacture's "raintight" fittings - an application also covered by Section 500.8(A)(3).