Improper Use of Fittings

[George Stolz]

Ryan, would the AHJ you work for also approve the installation?

(Just looking to drive a stake in 110.2, while we wait for smaller proof on the 110.3(B) front. )

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Joe,
I fail to find any wording in the NEMA document that says you can't put the connector in a coupling other than you must have at least three threads engaged and the locknut might prevent that. Remove the locknut and you won't find anything in the document that actually says you can't make that installation.
Don

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Joe
I am going to agree with Don (and others) on this one. This has been a field installed method at least since I have been in the industry... going on 30 years. Maybe the UL labeling says it has not been investigated. Maybe NEMA standards are not in favor of it (I saw first hand this year at the Eastern Section of the IAEI how NEMA tends to deal with "products" and introducing them into the NEC.

Remember years ago when the GEC method was to use a common grounding electrode to multiple disconnects even though it was not a permitted method in the NEC. A mere proposal changed that, now it is a permitted method.
I believe this type of installation is similar... a proposal away from being a permitted method, and then all would be happy.
I will say that with the proper installing method, I do not see any inherent safety hazard to this installation.

Remember that an AHJ can 'approve' an installation if he/she feels it is equivalent to the intended requirement. Hopefully that is where experience of the AHJ comes to play.


My question to you...
Do you believe this installation to be unsafe?

 

[joe tedesco]

I am still not convince Don.

Where are the rest of the Moderator's here?

Seems like you all have the same story.

I hope the vast membership here will sit back and take notice of this common occurrence, and when Mike chimes in, if he does, we can all be happy we are in total disagreement.

Ryan, I am surprised at your comments, you teach the NEC and proper use of the Code, and still will allow the misuse of fittings in violation of 110.3?

That's all I am trying to convey here. MISUSE

George: Get the high speed service, or a Verizon card, and Bob you should see my new toy the pocket sized Sony computer, wireless, it is the most recent addition to my toys.

This has been a great learning experience for many here, and I am sure that many will start using the proper fittings and doing it right on their next job.

My What's Wrong Here? articles, such as this one fall across over 75,000 desks and some have disagreed with the content of this one, that's why I posted it, so be it!

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Joe,
You haven't shown us any documents that say the picture that you posted is a misuse of the product.
Don

 

[joe tedesco]

Pierre:

And the Proposal? How would it read?

If this installation was subject to a fault, would the MISUSE of the fittings be questioned?

 

[George Stolz]

Where are the rest of the Moderator's here?

What will a consensus of moderators do, Joe? I don't understand the point of your question.

George: Get the high speed service, or a Verizon card...

I'll tell the wife you told me to. LOL

So, do you have something in text to bolster your case at all?

It's been a pleasant discussion, I hope you don't run off before giving me something to work with.

 

[George Stolz]

If this installation was subject to a fault, would the MISUSE of the fittings be questioned?

I don't see that they would be questioned, if the fitting was made up tight and an EGC was installed in the raceway. If it failed to fail, there would be no questioning of the wiring method, would there?

 

[joe tedesco]

George:

The comment about the moderators was to make sure that everyone who reads this forum knows how close they stay together through their channels and continue to run this show, unlike other boards where the Moderator only steps in to stop the problems that may develop as the posts get hot and heavy.

And as far as I am concerned the burden of proof is still on you the installer.

I laid out my arguments here and that's where I stand!

Pierre suggests a proposal is in order, why don't you write one and see if it will be accepted.

Could be called: Mix and Match. Fittings shall be permitted to be used anyway you want as long as they work.

The issue is still not clear to you about the misuse of the fittings?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Joe
In all fairness here, you did not answer my question. Do you really think this is an unsafe installation?

I can say from experience, that I have seen this type of installation perform in a fault condition... and the OCPD opened.


proposals are difficult to write, as we all have found out.

A quick simple one for this.

raceway fittings installed that are not investigated as suitable for grounding purposes shall have an equipment bonding conductor installed in the raceway, sized as per 250.122.

 

[George Stolz]

The comment about the moderators was to make sure that everyone who reads this forum knows how close they stay together through their channels and continue to run this show, unlike other boards where the Moderator only steps in to stop the problems that may develop as the posts get hot and heavy.

Uh, Joe, I agree with what they've posted and I'm not been approached or brainwashed by the moderators.

And as far as I am concerned the burden of proof is still on you the installer.

The code is a compilation of rules governing electrical work. In order to be in violation of the code, I must have broken a rule. If I feel it is legal and you do not, then it is up to you to prove I've broken the code.

I laid out my arguments here and that's where I stand!

I didn't see an argument, I saw that you made a statement without providing proof to make it fact. That's an opinion.

The issue is still not clear to you about the misuse of the fittings?

No, because you have not presented me with a code section, or with a listing requirement to make a citation of 110.3(B) stick.

FWIW, it seems to me that 110.3(B) and 110.12 are tossed around a lot, when someone doesn't like the way something is done but can't directly cite a code reference to condemn it. Equipment can even be field modified, the UL just says that they just cannot approve or disapprove of modifications made in the field.

So, is there some NEMA or UL text document you can provide to clear this up?

 

[ibew441dc]

improper use of fittings

improper use of fittings

Wow all this debate and nobody brought up 348.6 or 358.6.:roll:

Both of these sections require listing of the raceway and associated fittings.

To my knowledge a rigid coupling isn't listed to be used with EMT or FMC.

Though 110.3(B) has been brought up many times I think it is very important as far as this argument is concerned.

Ibew441dc

 

[joe tedesco]

No, just not a proper one.

Your draft looks promising, have to wait a while though for the 2011 cycle.

 

[joe tedesco]

Good references!

Good references!

Wow all this debate and nobody brought up 348.6 or 358.6.:roll:

Both of these sections require listing of the raceway and associated fittings.

To my knowledge a rigid coupling isn't listed to be used with EMT or FMC.

Though 110.3(B) has been brought up many times I think it is very important as far as this argument is concerned.

Ibew441dc

Good for you !

Great references they settle the issues!!

Good night for now, until tomorrow!

 

[roger]

To my knowledge a rigid coupling isn't listed to be used with EMT or FMC.

Ibew441dc

The coupling is not being used with EMT or FMC, it is being used with fittings so don't get to excited Joe.

Roger

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Joe
Actually that does settle the argument.

The listing that is mentioned in the above post are for "general" requirements of using a fitting that is listed as suitable for the raceway. But for grounding, go to DWTT and FKAV in the White Book. Both types of fittings are listed as suitable for grounding purposes.

This goes along with my earlier post as to the possible permitted installation.
Another thought is what is NEMA's real purpose. I still believe they are trying to sell products...yes they are very good for the industry, but I do not see a study to prove that the fittings will not work as a ground path. I am sure if they thought it would not, they may have commissioned a study to prove so.

 

[ceknight]

Joe,
You haven't shown us any documents that say the picture that you posted is a misuse of the product.

I'll jump into this one. I'm a newer voice, Joe, not one of the "same old" contributors. I just read the entire thread, and it amounts to this: "Joe makes an assertion, lots of people ask for a simple explanation of why they should suppose Joe's assertion is true, and Joe continues to ignore them and instead says other things that don't answer their question."

You can add my newer, different voice to the chorus of Don, Bob, Roger, George, Pierre et al. It's the same question, but a different voice.

 

[ibew441dc]

The coupling is not being used with EMT or FMC, it is being used with fittings so don't get to excited Joe.

Roger

obviousily you havn't read 348.6 or 358.6

keywords: associated fittings

ibew441dc

 

[joe tedesco]

See Page 57 and beyond in the UL 2006 White Book for CONDUIT FITTINGS (DWTT)
​

 

[joe tedesco]

Chris:

Read my very first post it says it all, the rest that follows is just a lot of discussion.

When All Else Fails, Play Dead!

PS: I have some really good violation pictures from Syracuse, NY, or should I say $$$ the crossed Neutral city?