Class 1, Division 2, Group C and D, conduit drains

Status
Not open for further replies.
jscottelwood

jscottelwood

Member
Location
Oklahoma
My engineering department insists on using Crouse-Hinds CD-1 and CD-2 conduit drains in a Class I, Division 2, Group C and D location (expense). I insist that in "ANY" hazardous location, they are not authorized. I wrote many times to the manufacturer and it was like pulling teeth but I finally got them to admit that these fittings are not authorized/classified for hazardous locations. I am demanding that they use "listed" fittings for any hazardous location. (ECD-15, ECD-16, etc.). They tried to pull "90.4" on me but I don't believe that even the AHJ can supercede the manufacturer's recommendation. any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
If the drains are only installed in the conduit in an Divison 2 area and not in an enclosure that is required to be explosionproof, there is no need for explosionproof drains.
Don
 
500.8 Equipment

500.8 Equipment

Refer to Article 500.8(A)(1)(1-3) Equipment...fittings are "equipment" according to the definition in Article 500.2
 
Equipment

Equipment

I understand that they do not need to be explosionproof...but they "do" need to be "authorized" for the environment for which they are installed...they also "must" be installed according to manufacturer's recommendations.
 
listed

listed

Article 500.8(D)(1) States..."For equipment provided with threaded entries for NPT threaded conduit or fittings, listed conduit, conduit fittings, or cable fittings shall be used
 
I agree with Don?s general statement.

In the case of Section 500.8(A), the key term is identified, not ?authorized? as implied above. The definition of identified does NOT, in and of itself, require either listing or labeling. Those are methods to identify, but they are not exclusive. In fact, if these were listed fittings, Section 500.8(B)(6)(a) wouldn?t require any distinctive markings either.

As you have noted, there are occasions where listing is specifically required; 500.8(D)(1) for example. In this case, the fittings merely need to be listed, but there still is no specific requirement they be more than identified for Class, Division, Group, etc.

Now let?s look specifically at the Crouse-Hinds type CD drain. Per their on-line catalog the drains aren?t listed by any recognized US domestic standard ? even for general purpose use. They don't even claim "compliance" for this product. IMO CH is notorious for this. They will imply a product is listed when it isn?t - it is only "compliant" with a standard (in thier opinion). You must get the ?E? number for the product.

But, if they produce one then I wouldn?t hesitate to use them as Don has said.
 
bologna sandwich

bologna sandwich

So, basically what you are saying is Crouse-Hinds and Appleton decide if the component is good enough or not...
 
Last edited:
So be it....I work as an electrical inspector for an oil and gas facility manufacturing plant fabrication facility. We build oil and gas separators, LNG plants, hydrogen plants, etc. for worldwide sale, distribution and operation. I sleep well at night knowing I went the extra mile to make sure that all of the areas under my supervision meet or exceed safety standards dictated by the NEC, ANSI, API, OSHA, etc. I do not concern myself with the expense of safety, merely the apex of it, where my realm of influence is concerned. I recently toured some plants which we built years ago. These were in Georgia and Mexico. The apparent lack of maintenance, corrosion and abuse have turned these plants into virtual time bombs. I am really appreciative to Mike Holt for having this site. It gives me a chance to get ideas and interpretations which are priceless...bye for now...
 
Last edited:
You still haven't read it very carefully, even after your major re-edit; nevertheless I also needed to reread my reply and I see the antecedent in the last sentence was unclear. I should have said:

"But, if they produce [an "E number"] then I wouldn?t hesitate to use them as Don has said."

The "E number" is the reference to UL's listing of the product. I never said or implied manufacturer's self certification was sufficient in the application. In fact, I said there is no evidence from their on-line catalog that the C-H, "Type CD" drain was listed at all. In which case, it would not be acceptable in classified locations.
 
re-edit

re-edit

I edited my comments to keep from varying too far off of the subject...(I, also, haven't had lunch). I have an e-mail in my hands, dated 8-7-2007 8:32 am. from jenniferlenweaver@cooperindustries.com. It is in response to my question to her as to whether or not their CD-1 or CD-2 conduit drains are rated, listed or authorized for use in hazardous locations (Class I, Division 2). Her response... (verbatim) "No, these are not classified for Class I, Division 2". Now, if they say that...how can we, as mere electricians, say otherwise?
 
Last edited:
My point is that the drain does not have to be listed as an explosionproof fitting when used in a Division 2 location unless you are installing the drain on an enclosure that is required to be explosionproof. Division 2 does not require explosionproof conduit fittings and any listed conduit fitting can be used. I did not know when I made my first post that the drains in question were not a listed product. If they are not a listed product they can't be used in any location, classified or not per 344.6.
Don
 
CD-1 and CD-2

CD-1 and CD-2

In their literature they do have a UL Standard listing (514B)...UL Standard 514B "Conduit, Tubing and Cable Fittings"...Paragraph 1.4 specifically states that this particular Standard "does not" apply to any equipment for use in hazardous locations. Now, is this where the mutually exclusive rule applies? If it's listed in 514B then it can't be for a hazardous environment, right...?
 
  • If the drains are not listed at all they cannot be used at all [344.2] (I confess I forgot about this one)
  • If they are listed for general purpose use they are permitted in Division 2 except as required by 501.105(B)(1), 501.115(B)(1), and 501.150(B)(1). [501.10(B)(4)] and they require no special marking [500.8(D)(1)]
It is that simple
jscottelwood said:
In their literature they do have a UL Standard listing (514B)...UL Standard 514B "Conduit, Tubing and Cable Fittings"...Paragraph 1.4 specifically states that this particular Standard "does not" apply to any equipment for use in hazardous locations. Now, is this where the mutually exclusive rule applies? If it's listed in 514B then it can't be for a hazardous environment, right...?
Click to expand...
I would still require C-H to submit their "E Number" for the product before I would accept that they are listed.
 
CD-1 and CD-2

CD-1 and CD-2

In your first bulleted line you reference 344.2, I believe you meant 344.6 "Listing Requirements"...I am cutting an e-mail to Crouse-Hinds and Appleton to give them a chance to opine. My company standards state that for our drains and breathers we "must" use one of these two. I will ask for their "E" number on these products...If they have none, I will be forced to use the ECD's. More expensive but Code compliant. There seems to be a gap between the unlisted bug screens and the explosionproof drains...someone could make a fortune by filling this gap...unless they are busy manufacturing millions of AFCI's and GFCI's to appease the 2008 NEC changes. Much thanks...
 
There seems to be a gap between the unlisted bug screens and the explosionproof drains...someone could make a fortune by filling this gap
Click to expand...
I am not sure that there is a market...in many cases the installer drills a hole in a conduit plug or cuts a notch in the conduit body gasket to provide a low point drain. Yes, that is likey a 110.3(B) violation, but is a very common practice.
Don
 
listing

listing

Well, Crouse-Hinds finally came up with an "E" listing number for their conduit drains...funny, but the CD-1 and CD-2's are listed in the UL listing as "connectors"...I'll bet they were originally listed as cord grips (that is what they really are, sans the gripper sleeve and adding the bug screen)...I will have to get a hold of UL and see if someone didn't just "edit" the listing to include these...or if they (C-H) changed their designation or nomenclature without informing anyone...Hmmm?? Well, thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion.
 
If they gave you an "E Number" you can look it up at UL's website here. Type it in the "UL File Number" box on the left hand side.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top