Listed use of a liquidtight connector

[copperhead]

I have a job where we have made an adapter using an EMT conn to a rigid coupling and screwed a liquidtight connector to the opposite side of the rigid coupling. The local inspector said the Connectors are not listed for this use. I cannot find any data to support my or his position.
HELP!!!

 

[hurk27]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

He is probably using 300.15
But 300.15 (F) seem's to allow it.

300.15 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings ? Where Required.

A box shall be installed at each outlet and switch point for concealed knob-and-tube wiring.

Fittings and connectors shall be used only with the specific wiring methods for which they are designed and listed.

Where the wiring method is conduit, tubing, Type AC cable, Type MC cable, Type MI cable, nonmetallic-sheathed cable, or other cables, a box or conduit body complying with Article 314 shall be installed at each conductor splice point, outlet point, switch point, junction point, termination point, or pull point, unless otherwise permitted in 300.15(A) through (M

300.15 (F) Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation.
Hope this helps

 

[charlie]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

The AHJ may be referring to the EMT connector if this has to be liquidtight since EMT connectors are not liquidtight .

 

[tony_psuee]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

Most of the liquidtight connectors I have seen are only approved for that a specific type. For example, LFNC-A, LFNC-B, or LFMC. I would think it would be 358.6, with the fitting not being listed for use with EMT.

This is an interesting subject for me. Most of the equipment I work with is roof top mounted and a fair amount of the actual wiring is done by mechanical contractors. I have seen several situations like you have described, yet the inspectors never seem to make it to the roof to check the equipment connection, only the MCC. The mechanical guys seem to have the mind set that if it fits, even with the help of duct tape, electrical tape, epoxy, a sock, it must be OK.

Tony

 

[gregoryelectricinc]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

Good point Charlie, He may well be referring to the loss of U.L. listings on compression EMT fittings. Otherwise, IMO, it is a stretch to say that the GRC coupling is not used in an "as-listed" fashion. It is "coupling" two threaded pipe ends via their connectors. Just my opinion.

 

[a.wayne3@verizon.net]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

Greg good point also,it does not say pvc or rigid pipe...........Both are listed as pipe.........

 

[earlydean]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

He may be refering to the fact that outdoor locations requiring sealtite would also require a raintight connector on the EMT.

Earl

 

[Guest]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

Originally posted by copperhead:
I have a job where we have made an adapter using an EMT conn to a rigid coupling and screwed a liquidtight connector to the opposite side of the rigid coupling. <snip>

Is the application indoors or outdoors?

Is the EMT connector RT or set-screw?

[ September 18, 2003, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: awwt ]

 

[earlydean]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

Another thing to consider is that UL recently announced that they have upgraded their EMT raintight specs, and currently there are no UL listed manufacturers of raintight EMT conduit.

see the UL webpage http://www.ul.com/regulators/raintight.html

Earl

 

[pierre]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

One of the reasons this is not a listed 'assembly' is the ground fault path. This set up may be used for the ground fault path and the parts put together have not been tested for that purpose, therefore no listing. I have seen the decision of the inspector go both ways on this type of situation.

Pierre

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

Pierre: As always, thanks for your post, you seem to always have a nice twist to think about. If there where an equipment grounding conductor in the conduit, would this still be an issue?

 

[jim dungar]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

Give me a break. How in any stretch of imagination can this situation violate an installation listing? (Granted it needs to be an indoor application because of the new UL raintight requirements). It seems we are trying to justify an irrational, if not stupid, position.

The liquidtite conduit connector has "listed" male threads which are intended to be installed into "listed" female threads. The rigid conduit coupling has "listed" female threads which are intended to join two items with "listed" male threads. The EMT connector has "listed" male threads which are intended to be installed into "listed" female threads.

I see "listed" threads into "listed" threads, where is the problem?

If the two connectors were installed into a conduit body instead of a coupling would it's ground fault path be unacceptable? What if each connector was in its own junction box, and both boxes were separated by two runs of rigid conduit joined with a coupling, is this unacceptable?

 

[hurk27]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

exactly Jim.
this is why I say 300.15 permits this.


300.15 (F) Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation.

[ September 21, 2003, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]

 

[pierre]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

Jim
Sometimes I myself do not agree with certain decisions. I have been putting more and more time into the research of some questions, and in doing so have found out why some decisions are made. I know some do not want to hear this, but(t) the driving force today behind some of these decisions is 'litigation'. Now with that said...

When a fitting, piece of equipment or whatever does not have a listing for 'something' like wirenuts not listed for grounding purposes, it does not necessarily mean that it cannot function in the specific manner.
What I mean by that is that the manufacturer or the NRTL has not tested it for the 'purpose' (for whatever reason) and therefore it is not listed for that purpose. Now we all know that the wirenut will probably work for grounding purposes, it just is not listed for it.

Because no one has tested the fittings being installed for grounding purposes, no one wants to take the responsibility of saying it is okay. It may seem simple, but wait until it goes to court and ...
I am not positive, but I believe this is why the standard for EMT raintight fittings has been revised.
Jim, this is not meant to be directed at you, I am trying to answer this as 'I' interpret it.


Pierre

 

[iwire]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

This grounding issue makes no sense at all.

All of these parts are listed for grounding as individual fittings.

I could have 50 die cast set screw EMT couplings in a ground fault path with no code issue, but two threaded joints are going to effect the ground fault path?

 

[roger]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

What would this inspector say if you removed the ridgid coupling and inserted a C condulet, this is basically a coupling with an opening in it.


Roger

 

[bennie]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

The problem is not the coupling, it is the straight thread on the connector.

Straight threads are only for locknut installation. A tapered thread is the only one approved for a fitting connection.

A threaded fitting should not be used with EMT connectors.

 

[iwire]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

So all the times EMT compression connectors where used to enter weatherproof boxes where also violations?

 

[tom baker]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

UL has sent a notice that none of the emt compression fittings are "raintight", and according to a rep from T&B, they are going to redesign their fittings and resumit to UL for testing.

[ September 21, 2003, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: tom baker ]

 

[iwire]

Re: Listed use of a liquidtight connector

Yes Tom I am aware of that, but previous to that statement from UL it was an accepted practice to thread an EMT connector into a threaded box hub.

Bennie's position was that EMT connectors are suitable only for use with locknuts, I was trying to give an example of where we have done otherwise for many years.

Bob