Art 514 Sealoff Question

[augie47]

I have encountered one of these "we always do it that way" situations.
E/C has wired many stations, but has a situation which I think is a violation.
Perhaps I am overlooking something.
To the point:
I have a conduit from a building entering gas dispenser #1 with a sealoff as my first fitting. From there, a nipple extends the run to an explosion proof Tee. From that Tee I have another conduit going back into the ground and extending to dispenser #2.
There is no sealoff in the 2nd conduit.
It seems to be a violation of 514.9.
Am I overlooking something ?

 

[north star]

~ : ~ : ~

"It seems to be a violation of 514.9"......Am I overlooking something ?"

I believe that you are correct sir !......In the `08 NEC Handbook,
Exhibit 514.4 is an excellent illustration of your application. :thumbsup:

: ~ : ~ :

 

[rbalex]

From your description, I'd say there was definitely a 514.9(A) violation at the second dispenser. A seal is required at each entry/exit into the dispenser.

Boundary seals are a bit more difficult to evaluate. Assuming the T fitting is inside the first dispenser or ?? cavity in direct communication therewith? it is possible the second dispenser?s seal may do ?double duty? depending on the length of the raceway and other possible fittings in between. I?d have to see a detail design or the actual installation.

It is important to recognize two things:

• The ?cavity in direct communication? with the dispenser is not explosionproof in itself ? it?s just a hole in the ground.
• The ?cavity in direct communication? with the dispenser may not actually have flammable materials in it, it?s simply possible under ?normal? operations from spills at the pump by consumers ? not leaks in the dispenser.