offset nipples

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stew

Senior Member
Location
federal way,washington
A co-worker had a correction written on a home sevice that puzzles me a bit. The correction was for the use of an offset nipple at the standard hub in a meter can. Somehting about the threads being of a different pitch? The claim was the the fitting would leak. I can t see this happening as the fitting itself even has a lip so it fits very snugly around whatever mating surface it is fitted to thus preventing moisture from finding its way down around the trheaded part. Any code violation that any of you may know of?
 
No violation that I can think of. What specific article did the inspector cite?
 
UL issued a statement a while back that said fittings like this as well as conduit and cable connectors are only intended to be used with locknuts. Look at the second question on this page.
Don
 
You can not violate a listing. A listing relates to how the item was manufactured. Even the link provided by Don never uses this phrase.

You can, however, apply/use/install a device in a method that it was not evaluated for. This would be in violation of 110.3(B).
 
jim dungar said:
You can not violate a listing. A listing relates to how the item was manufactured. Even the link provided by Don never uses this phrase.

You can, however, apply/use/install a device in a method that it was not evaluated for. This would be in violation of 110.3(B).
Click to expand...

So when I connect EMT to an LB with a connector, it is technically a 110.3(B) red tag. Correct?
 
electricman2 said:
So when I connect EMT to an LB with a connector, it is technically a 110.3(B) red tag. Correct?
Click to expand...

It is up to the AHJ to determine if a red tag is applicable. The reference Don posted seems to really only refer to the problem of "watertightness" of the EMT threads not to any mechanical or grounding problems.
 
I find this rather silly. There are millions of hubs sitting on top of meter enclosures with RNC terminal adapters, watertight SE connectors, EMT connectors, etc. The amount of water that might penetrate these threads is negligible.
 
jim dungar said:
It is up to the AHJ to determine if a red tag is applicable. The reference Don posted seems to really only refer to the problem of "watertightness" of the EMT threads not to any mechanical or grounding problems.
Click to expand...

Apparently they are concerned with other than water tightness according to this quote from the above referenced document:

"Other considerations with straight threaded connectors into a tapered threaded hub may be grounding. Depending on the installation of the straight threaded connector into the hub, the contact may not be tight enough to assure an effective ground-fault current path. The connection of straight threaded connectors, such as EMT connectors, is not evaluated with hubs as part of their listing."
 
UL.....you gotta love em. :(

UL says a threaded fitting into a conduit body is a questionable grounding means.

This from the same UL that lists reducing washers as suitable for grounding means.
 
iwire said:
UL.....you gotta love em. :(

UL says a threaded fitting into a conduit body is a questionable grounding means.

This from the same UL that lists reducing washers as suitable for grounding means.
Click to expand...


I couldn't agree more. We're getting into the really absurd territory.
 
Really absurd when you consider GRC is supplied with 'thread protectors', as pipefitters/plumbers call 'em. We in the electrical trade call them couplings. However, they are straight threaded... not taper threaded such as a liguid-tight pipe coupling would be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top