LMFC type EF use in Class 1 Div 2 hazardous location (brand anaconda)

[DA72]

Why is that a concern? RMC/IMC isn't insulated at all. Most raceways aren't insulated. FWIW, LFMC isn't insulated either; it's jacketed.

You are right mistake in calling it insulated, jacketed is more accurate. But the argument is that type EF is not listed nor tested to meet code requirements in this area, whereas type UA specifically listed for such environments.

 

[rbalex]

The NEC doesn't require everything to be cross referenced or all the design considerations located in one place. Otherwise the Code would be 2-3 times larger. Section 501.10 only needs to identify LFMC which automatically makes it Article 350; i.e., if it ain't listed it ain't LFMC.

 

[DA72]

The NEC doesn't require everything to be cross referenced or all the design considerations located in one place. Otherwise the Code would be 2-3 times larger. Section 501.10 only needs to identify LFMC which automatically makes it Article 350; i.e., if it ain't listed it ain't LFMC.

Hence the issue, the installer and designer don't see it that way. Do I drop the issue and let the install stay as is?

 

[rbalex]

You are right mistake in calling it insulated, jacketed is more accurate. But the argument is that type EF is not listed nor tested to meet code requirements in this area, whereas type UA specifically listed for such environments.

Actually, Type EF isn't suitable for any NEC recognized installation. Just because a manufacturer makes it, and suppliers sell it, don't make it legal. The only prohibition is installing it.

 

[DA72]

Actually, Type EF isn't suitable for any NEC recognized installation. Just because a manufacturer makes it, and suppliers sell it, don't make it legal. The only prohibition is installing it.

Any thoughts on path forward. Installer says correct. Hopefully designer will come back Monday and say its not, but he hinted to executives he didn't see any issues. He stated that its just an observation but he will have to go through His pictures and the code book. The AHJ has already passed the inspection, with a quick walk through as most looked well done.

 

[rbalex]

Hence the issue, the installer and designer don't see it that way. Do I drop the issue and let the install stay as is?

I don't know their qualifications. I do know mine. If you drop the issue, you may need to consider if your State or Federal OSHA will be concerned. (They will be if you ever have an accident and you now have a fairly well documented "paper trail" to explain)

 

[petersonra]

And I think rbalex is stating that failure of an OCPD to open under a ground fault because of an inadequate raceway EGC is something that the CODE requires you to consider too.

If there is a green wire inside the faux LFMC, there is likely no issue with the OCPD tripping. I don't recall if the OP ever stated whether that is the case or not. If not, I would be more concerned about reliably tripping the OCPD than any extra hazard from having faux LFMC than real LFMC.

Personally, I think the fact that it does not meet code is an adequate reason to raise a flag, and reject the work as unsuitable. I would say the same thing if the spec said that the conduit should be painted dark gray and they painted it light gray. The contractor likely agreed to meet the code and from what the OP is stating, he didn't.

My guess is that based on the description of the scope of this mess that it will cost a lot of money to fix it. That is why it is a mess for someone well above the OP's paygrade to deal with. Presumably he has alerted his supervisor to the issue, preferably in writing, and it is now up to the system to deal with it.

 

[rbalex]

Any thoughts on path forward. Installer says correct. Hopefully designer will come back Monday and say its not, but he hinted to executives he didn't see any issues. He stated that its just an observation but he will have to go through His pictures and the code book. The AHJ has already passed the inspection, with a quick walk through as most looked well done.

I would consider referencing this thread to the engineer and the inspector. Most inspectors only represent the AHJ and are not actually the AHJ themselves. HOWEVER, if the "real" AHJ has approved the installation, it may clear you with OSHA.

 

[petersonra]

Actually, Type EF isn't suitable for any NEC recognized installation. Just because a manufacturer makes it, and suppliers sell it, don't make it legal. The only prohibition is installing it.

I agree. It is like using diesel cable that is not rated as some NEC recognized insulation, or using galvanized water pipe elbows in lieu of actual RMC elbows. It is relatively common to see both of these, it probably does not introduce any hazard, but it is still not code complaint and IMO should not be installed that way.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Actually, Type EF isn't suitable for any NEC recognized installation. Just because a manufacturer makes it, and suppliers sell it, don't make it legal. The only prohibition is installing it.

Almost exactly what a manufacturer's rep told me at a trade show when I asked why they make and sell the unlisted type.
He said it isn't a violation to sell it, only a violation to install it, but we have customers who want it so we make and sell it.

 

[DA72]

If there is a green wire inside the faux LFMC, there is likely no issue with the OCPD tripping. I don't recall if the OP ever stated whether that is the case or not. If not, I would be more concerned about reliably tripping the OCPD than any extra hazard from having faux LFMC than real LFMC.

Personally, I think the fact that it does not meet code is an adequate reason to raise a flag, and reject the work as unsuitable. I would say the same thing if the spec said that the conduit should be painted dark gray and they painted it light gray. The contractor likely agreed to meet the code and from what the OP is stating, he didn't.

My guess is that based on the description of the scope of this mess that it will cost a lot of money to fix it. That is why it is a mess for someone well above the OP's paygrade to deal with. Presumably he has alerted his supervisor to the issue, preferably in writing, and it is now up to the system to deal with it.

The anaconda LFMC used type EF does not come with ground, which is why they added ground on outside. Here is the manufacture material cut sheet.

http://flexiblewiringconduits.anacondasealtite.com/Asset/AEI CAT 2013_EF.pdf

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...

• Liquidtight flexible metal conduit (or nonmetallic conduit) with listed fittings - (doesn't give reference to Article 350 which discusses types of LFMC to be used, which is how they are fighting how they installed was correct.) ...

[QUOTE]
Per 90.3 the rules in Chapters 1 through 4 apply to Chapter 5 installations, unless the Chapter 5 article makes a specific change.

Now the question is if the rule in 501 left out the word listed is an intentional change to permit the use of the non-listed version?

I expect that the rule in 501 was not updated when the rule was changed in 350 to require the use of listed LFMC. That change was made in the 196 code.

 

[petersonra]

The anaconda LFMC used type EF does not come with ground, which is why they added ground on outside. Here is the manufacture material cut sheet.

http://flexiblewiringconduits.anacondasealtite.com/Asset/AEI CAT 2013_EF.pdf

I think you should stop calling it LFMC.

It is like calling paste gems diamonds. They may look alike but the paste faux gems are not diamonds.

 

[petersonra]

Almost exactly what a manufacturer's rep told me at a trade show when I asked why they make and sell the unlisted type.
He said it isn't a violation to sell it, only a violation to install it, but we have customers who want it so we make and sell it.

It is not a violation to install it in all cases. I think it could be used for class 2 circuits or article 800 applications, or where it is used as a sleeve and not a raceway.

 

[rbalex]

...

• Liquidtight flexible metal conduit (or nonmetallic conduit) with listed fittings - (doesn't give reference to Article 350 which discusses types of LFMC to be used, which is how they are fighting how they installed was correct.) ...

[QUOTE]
Per 90.3 the rules in Chapters 1 through 4 apply to Chapter 5 installations, unless the Chapter 5 article makes a specific change.

Now the question is if the rule in 501 left out the word listed is an intentional change to permit the use of the non-listed version?

I expect that the rule in 501 was not updated when the rule was changed in 350 to require the use of listed LFMC. That change was made in the 196 code.

Listed LFMC has been around even before 1996. Since 1973, FedOSHA has required anything that can be listed must be listed. See 29 CFR 399 definitions of approved, acceptable and accepted.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It is not a violation to install it in all cases. I think it could be used for class 2 circuits or article 800 applications, or where it is used as a sleeve and not a raceway.

I am not aware of anything in 725 for Class 2 circuits that modifies the rule in 350.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Listed LFMC has been around even before 1996. Since 1973, FedOSHA has required anything that can be listed must be listed. See 29 CFR 399 definitions of approved, acceptable and accepted.

I have no idea when they started making the listed version, I just know that the first NEC requirement to use the listed version appeared in the 1996 code.

Yes, I learned about the OSHA rule from you on this forum many years ago, but it seems that very few in the electrical engineering and contracting world are aware of that rule.

 

[DA72]

Listed LFMC has been around even before 1996. Since 1973, FedOSHA has required anything that can be listed must be listed. See 29 CFR 399 definitions of approved, acceptable and accepted.

Huge help :thumbsup:

 

[DA72]

I have no idea when they started making the listed version, I just know that the first NEC requirement to use the listed version appeared in the 1996 code.

Yes, I learned about the OSHA rule from you on this forum many years ago, but it seems that very few in the electrical engineering and contracting world are aware of that rule.

Here is list of approved testing agencies approved by Osha. Nowhere is type EF "LFMC" by anaconda listed as tested by approved agency.

https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/nrtllist.html

 

[DA72]

Huge help :thumbsup:

I ran this past an electrical exam instructor I know who said,

"Based on your info, and the NEC code my opinion is that LFMC type EF is unlisted and cannot to be used. Attached find the UL listing requirements from the “White Book”.

I will send your info to NJ DCA Code Assistance (without your name) for their review.

Let me know if that is OK."

He forwarded it DCA assistance and this is response,
"I would agree, but 110.3(A) says if it meets the criteria listed it can be used with AHJ approval. I think based on the environment I would use 356.6 (Must Be Listed) and allow the board of appeals make the decision."


I am confused. what is the purpose of listed if recognized testing can be bypassed? If OSHA says acceptable means is tested by recognized testing agency, not AHJ approval.