Spot the violation
- Thread starter jrannis
- Start date
- Status
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
Yes...to your question.and now a phone call.....hello Carlon or whomever........yes greg.......hi I have question.......yes Greg.....Can I drill holes in one of your conduit bodies and install more raceways?.........I don't think so..... see for starters NEC 110.3(B) and we will send you more information if needed......thanks....goodbye. I am not being a smart a** but that is my point. And I am calling them as we speak. Violating their warranty / use is the key word.
Last edited:
stormywyo
Member
- Location
- Stigler, Oklahoma
And there were times I could have used this method
I think you missed my point. This question is very simple: Are PVC MAs listed for use in wet locations when they are installed through oridinary KOs?
Does it matter whether that KO is in an LB, or gutter, or J-box, or a panel?
- Location
- Massachusetts
Serious.
Unless that is included with the listing of the equipment it is just an opinion.
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
It is a great picture...shows how we can be clever, even if we may not pay attention to what would be permitted
Like Greg, I would contact the contractor and ask him to provide me with a letter from the manufacturer as to the validity of the installation. I am not an engineer nor a representative of the manufacturer, so asking for a letter relieves me of having to pretend I am either. If they ask for a code reference, I will provide them with 110.3(B). If in fact they are not satisfied with that reference, I will direct them to the building department and explain the necessary steps to override my ruling.
Splicing in an Conduit Body has restrictions, there are many conduit bodies where splicing may not be permitted. See 314.16(C)(2)
Like Greg, I would contact the contractor and ask him to provide me with a letter from the manufacturer as to the validity of the installation. I am not an engineer nor a representative of the manufacturer, so asking for a letter relieves me of having to pretend I am either. If they ask for a code reference, I will provide them with 110.3(B). If in fact they are not satisfied with that reference, I will direct them to the building department and explain the necessary steps to override my ruling.
Splicing in an Conduit Body has restrictions, there are many conduit bodies where splicing may not be permitted. See 314.16(C)(2)
- Location
- Massachusetts
Greg it really does not matter what the manufacturer suggests unless it is included in the equipments labeling or the equipments listing. 110.3(B) only applies to those two situations.
- Location
- Massachusetts
I don't see that 110.3(B) applies to a manufacturers quick response of the day.
The info is in the listing or it's not.
The info is in the labeling or it's not.
I did not write 110.3(B) but I get to use it as written. :smile:
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
I would say that you can't modify it, I would also question the number of conductors in it. Yes, you can splice in it as long as you don't exceed the cubic inches allowed.
M. D.
Senior Member
- Location
- Massachusetts
LJSMITH1
Senior Member
- Location
- Stratford, CT
Seriously? Ok...
I work for a manufacturer of conduit bodies (and other fittings), and I can tell you that it is absolutely a violation of an existing UL Listing if a conduit body was modified in a manner as depicted in the picture.
For starters, the sidewalls would probably not support the required pull/bend forces required in the UL standard (UL514A and B) - while maintaining a proper seal with the cover gasket. Secondly, it may not meet the required bend radius requirements for the two raceway attachments in close proximity to each other (i.e. U-Turn). FYI, any product with a UL listing is tested and approved for the application for which it was designed. If this fitting was INTENDED to be field modified, the manufacturer would certainly state that in it's instructions - and therefore would be UL listed with such field modifications. Heck, they might even make it easy by providing cast-in dimples to make sure the hole is drilled in the proper location.
If the manufacturer does not specifically state what modifications may be done (if any), then it is safe to assume the modifications render the product not covered by the UL listing unless you paid for a UL field inspector to visit the job site, and evaluate the application and product modifications.
I know if someone called me and asked if our product was still UL listed after such a modification, I would politely say "No". However, if the customer needed to do this frequently, we would offer to look into what it would cost to investigate if such a modification would affect the ability of the conduit body to meet the specifications required to maintain the UL listing. It might or might not be acceptable.
If you think this is OK, because the UL listing or manufacturer doesn't "tell" you that you can't make the modifications, then what would be the purpose of obtaining a UL listing for ANY product? I feel the burden is on the contractor/installer to quantifiably 'prove' that the modifications have not affected the performance characteristics that enabled the product to pass the UL tests and become listed in the first place. Our company wouldn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on specific UL testing services, only to find out that "anything goes" when our product reaches the field. There would be no point.....
I work for a manufacturer of conduit bodies (and other fittings), and I can tell you that it is absolutely a violation of an existing UL Listing if a conduit body was modified in a manner as depicted in the picture.
For starters, the sidewalls would probably not support the required pull/bend forces required in the UL standard (UL514A and B) - while maintaining a proper seal with the cover gasket. Secondly, it may not meet the required bend radius requirements for the two raceway attachments in close proximity to each other (i.e. U-Turn). FYI, any product with a UL listing is tested and approved for the application for which it was designed. If this fitting was INTENDED to be field modified, the manufacturer would certainly state that in it's instructions - and therefore would be UL listed with such field modifications. Heck, they might even make it easy by providing cast-in dimples to make sure the hole is drilled in the proper location.
If the manufacturer does not specifically state what modifications may be done (if any), then it is safe to assume the modifications render the product not covered by the UL listing unless you paid for a UL field inspector to visit the job site, and evaluate the application and product modifications.
I know if someone called me and asked if our product was still UL listed after such a modification, I would politely say "No". However, if the customer needed to do this frequently, we would offer to look into what it would cost to investigate if such a modification would affect the ability of the conduit body to meet the specifications required to maintain the UL listing. It might or might not be acceptable.
If you think this is OK, because the UL listing or manufacturer doesn't "tell" you that you can't make the modifications, then what would be the purpose of obtaining a UL listing for ANY product? I feel the burden is on the contractor/installer to quantifiably 'prove' that the modifications have not affected the performance characteristics that enabled the product to pass the UL tests and become listed in the first place. Our company wouldn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on specific UL testing services, only to find out that "anything goes" when our product reaches the field. There would be no point.....
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
Good post LJSMITH........Agreed.
- Location
- Massachusetts
We work under a permissive code, if it does not say we can not, we generally can.
I am currently installing 8" x 8" wire way, it arrived without KOs or mounting holes. I have no specific instructions from the manufacturer that says I may make any holes in it.
I guess I have to through it all out. :wink:
Nothing about UL and the NEC is as black and white as some would want it to be.
Is not possible to tell from picture ....but there may be a self sealing locknut inside of body?I have to agree, the MA is being used wrong.
LJSMITH1
Senior Member
- Location
- Stratford, CT
While you may not have specific instructions in hand, I'll bet they are available from the manufacturer if you asked. The 8X8 enclosure is sold as a J/B or wireway and designed to be field drilled according to what size raceway fitting you will be using.
My point is that the wireway is tested to be NEMA or UL listed using the typical modifications that would be encountered (i.e. field drilling).
A conduit body is not the same thing as its use is much more defined by its design. They are also not typically designed nor intended to be field drilled for additional conduits.
It's not all black and white, but most of the time it is..:wink:
My point is that the wireway is tested to be NEMA or UL listed using the typical modifications that would be encountered (i.e. field drilling).
A conduit body is not the same thing as its use is much more defined by its design. They are also not typically designed nor intended to be field drilled for additional conduits.
It's not all black and white, but most of the time it is..:wink:
- Location
- Massachusetts
And my point is that unless a modification goes against the equipments listing or labeling that 110.3(B) can not be cited.
110.3(B) is short and sweet, the CMP chose to include the word "included" for a specific reason and I choose not to ignore that word. :smile:
LJSMITH1
Senior Member
- Location
- Stratford, CT
I see your point...sort of..:wink:
At the end of the day, all that matters is if the AHJ approves...UL or not...:smile:
At the end of the day, all that matters is if the AHJ approves...UL or not...:smile:
wdemos
Member
- Location
- Commerce, Mich.
View attachment 2712
I doubt Arlingtons AnyBody would even fly in this install. I'm not sure about their listing but I believe their only supplyed with three fittings.
I doubt Arlingtons AnyBody would even fly in this install. I'm not sure about their listing but I believe their only supplyed with three fittings.
Last edited:
weressl
Esteemed Member
I don't know this as a fact but I have a crisp $100 bill for you, if you are willing to do the same, that it is not.
To me it is just so basic that I can't even imagine that anyone in the 'trade' with a modicum of technical sensibility could even consdier this to be a permissible modification.
- Status