Mike,

How would you test the seal off fitting, if it is wrench tight or not? You can't. I still say it's not accessible, how they installed it.

I think that is a contactor's responsibility making sure the fittings are tightened properly. All points that conduits in classified locations are connected to explosionproof enclosures, fittings, etc need to be made up wrench tight with 5 threads. (Except the 2005 code only requires 4 1/2 threads. Ha Ha!) I don’t check those. Just like all terminal lugs and conductor termination points in paneboards, require that they are torqued. As an inspector my jurisdiction doesn't provide the tools to check those things.

Let me ask, does the code in 501.5(c)(1) when it requires the seal off fittings to be accessible, to actually be removable? Or do they only have to be accessible so the conductors may be pulled, compound poured, or later re-poured, and checked through the access plug?

I'm not giving up on this. Now it's a quest. I will find something -- something good -- code solid that you will agree with me on. I just haven't found it yet. I still don't agree that they are accessible but that may be my interpretation and not yours (understood).

Then we will see how BP handles its Big Problem.

Good that' what we need.....something!

I can hear you giggling because you already know that it isn't in there......here is what I would do if it were me:

1) I would request a sealed letter from the designer of record (for a gas station it's probably an engineer) that states that he has no problem with the sealoffs being inside the panelboard. I would do this because it puts the responsibility of design back on the designer. It also takes any burden off of the inspector for an apparent lack of code language to prevent this from happening. I would want something from the degigner stating the fact that he/she is aware of how it is built. Maybe the plans already show them in there, I don't know, but I would be surprised if they did.

2) Come final inspection I would be waiting there with my tape rule. If the bonding bushing puts the sealoff at over 3" then I would fail the job. I would not accept 3.5". If that is the only way I could prevent this installation then I would use it. The code says 3" and the code is the code is the code.

You guys have a great Christmas if there are no more posts until then. In the meantime I'm still lookin' for that perfect code.........

Yep..did just that..the plans actually showed the seal off fittings under the panel on the outside just like you would think. So we requested a plan revision with a sealed letter from the engineer showing the seal off fittings inside the switchboard.

Along with that we have some e-mail's from some code experts (the big guns) telling us that in their opinion it's ok.

All of that information goes into the file, and shows that we extended ourselves to confirm the correct code interpretation. Can't do more than that. We even reviewed the 2005 to see if there changes that might effect the installation.

Looks like you've covered yourself and your jurisdiction from all angles. Good job Mike. I too would have to pass this. I was hoping to find something in 314 but it's just not in there. I don't like the fittings inside because other than taking up gutter space, the fittings don't permit future expansion because they can't be changed at this point. I'm not sure if 90.8 can apply in any way with this situation.

I do not know if the manufacturer of the sealoff fitting states that turning raduis must be maintained or not, and I guess they don't address it.

Sidebar: Seal off fittings come in a wide variety of materials depending on use. See commentary below that I got from an electrical magazine:

What choices do you have? Although their purpose is the same, sealing fittings come in a wide variety of designs to meet the exact requirements of specific applications. Besides being available in designs for vertical and horizontal conduit runs, sealing fittings come in different materials. Grayloy(tm) iron sealing fittings; also known as "breakout" seals; are favored in applications where you may want to fracture and remove a sealing fitting when retrofitting a conduit system. Malleable iron sealing fittings are ideal for the most demanding hazardous location. Extremely strong, malleable iron has a high tensile strength that enhances performance because it will not fracture under excessive internal or external pressures. The higher yield strength of malleable iron also permits the product to have a thinner cross-section, which results in a closer turning radius for easier installation.

Happy New Year everyone. Well I hate to give in to this situation but after talking to an Appleton engineer I guess I have to. He agrees with me that this in the very least is not a normal trade practice and the engineer,with the wording of the national electrical code,can circumvent the proper trade practice of seal off installations. It even shows the proper installation in the handbook in article 514. I guess we have to push to get this rewritten in the code.

One more thing as per Nick said I will be scrutinizing any other option to turn it down if i can.

In speaking with one of the experts on code panel 14 the reason why this is not a problem with gas stations is because the vapor leakage is not pressurized or under pressure, so the vapor leakage under normal atmospheric pressure differentials is minimal and dissipates quickly.

Evidently this installation is quite common and is, and has been used in many other states.

So don't look for a change, since the code panel has seen this specific installation and they don't think it's a problem.