DA72
Member
- Location
- Gibbstown NJ
A large construction project has recently completed at my work. Due to the volume of flammable solvents able to be contained in the area the room is classified as Class 1 Div 2 location. Where as some areas around man-ways and ports are class 1 div 1. Now in the commissioning phase, the safety dept. in conjunction with safety consultants are going through Process Safety Management startup required by NJ for the amount of flammable solvents that can be contained in that room at any one time. Recently I discovered during inspections of grounding and bonding what I saw as an issue.
The installing contractor installed LFMC Type EF in all of the room where flexible connections were needed, estimated some 200 locations. The brand Anaconda Type EF is not listed see reference to website and related PDF datasheet for type EF:
http://flexiblewiringconduits.anaco...rade-liquid-tight-flexible-metal-conduit-lfmc
My argument is that in the NEC both 2011 and 2014 Chapter 3 Wiring Methods and Material, Article 350.6 that LFMC and associated fittings shall be listed. Anaconda Type EF unlisted where as type UA is listed.
350.10 points out areas where LFMC can be used IE: (2) 501.10(b) Class 1 Div 2 (2) Flexible connections (3) LFMC with listed fittings.
The Contractor who installed is arguing that it is correct "feels it was installed according to code because of the existence of the double seal offs at each end of LFMC runs. Also they list pictures of NEC articles 501, 501.35(b), and 501.17.
I am not arguing that the installation method was incorrect, just the material they used is not listed to be used in this environment. It does say as in Article 501 (B) (2) Flexible connections (3) liquidtight flexible metal conduit with listed fittings. *Where the code book does not reference listed for the LFMC, just listed for fittings.
Still unsure the design company came in Friday also taking pictures saying he will review over the weekend in the codes, but feels fairly confident it is correct.
I am confused how even with proper bonding, sealoffs, that unlisted anaconda type EF can be allowed?
Can anyone let point out where I am wrong? Or what I should do next in case this problem is a legitimate concern which they fail to correct.
Thank you!
The installing contractor installed LFMC Type EF in all of the room where flexible connections were needed, estimated some 200 locations. The brand Anaconda Type EF is not listed see reference to website and related PDF datasheet for type EF:
http://flexiblewiringconduits.anaco...rade-liquid-tight-flexible-metal-conduit-lfmc
My argument is that in the NEC both 2011 and 2014 Chapter 3 Wiring Methods and Material, Article 350.6 that LFMC and associated fittings shall be listed. Anaconda Type EF unlisted where as type UA is listed.
350.10 points out areas where LFMC can be used IE: (2) 501.10(b) Class 1 Div 2 (2) Flexible connections (3) LFMC with listed fittings.
The Contractor who installed is arguing that it is correct "feels it was installed according to code because of the existence of the double seal offs at each end of LFMC runs. Also they list pictures of NEC articles 501, 501.35(b), and 501.17.
I am not arguing that the installation method was incorrect, just the material they used is not listed to be used in this environment. It does say as in Article 501 (B) (2) Flexible connections (3) liquidtight flexible metal conduit with listed fittings. *Where the code book does not reference listed for the LFMC, just listed for fittings.
Still unsure the design company came in Friday also taking pictures saying he will review over the weekend in the codes, but feels fairly confident it is correct.
I am confused how even with proper bonding, sealoffs, that unlisted anaconda type EF can be allowed?
Can anyone let point out where I am wrong? Or what I should do next in case this problem is a legitimate concern which they fail to correct.
Thank you!