ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Raintight EMT Fittings

The newer designed raintight fittings are more expensive than the ones used in the past which are now only rated concrete tight. In the interest of efficiency,
should these also be required by local inspectors when used for low voltage or Telco runs?

Yes, 800.110

Ok so if the jurisdiction has only adopted the 2002 NEC and the 2004 CEC(California Electric Code) then technically it would not be required to use these?

Operate under the code/s in effect.

And how can a State like California be so behind? Don't they want to ban Fireplaces,correct "OZONE" and ahead of the curve on pollution? Massachusetts just wants to keep up with them.

I don't get it.

The issue of 'raintight' connectors is not directly tied to any particular edition of the NEC. You need to use materials appropriate to the use.

The saga of the common compression fitting became a 'front burner' item the day some anonymous sort at UL actually tested some fittings to the 'wet location' test ... and they failed.

OOPS. The fittings everyone assumed were weather tight were not. UL revised the listing, and manufacturers scrambled to make a fitting that would pass the test. Some went a step further, and made some sort of indicator visible, for the convenience of the inspector.

So ... without regard for the code cycle your town uses, the old compression fittings are no longer considered suitable for use in wet locations; you need the new ones.

Since the code is not retro-active, there is no requirement to replace ones installed while they were still listed for the application.

there is no requirement to replace ones installed while they were still listed for the application.---

Would you not have to bring the portion retrofitted into compliance?

08' as I understand makes ALL outside apps. "wet locations".

Correct .. what you work on today generally needs to meet today's rules. In this instance of fittings, I cannot see the 'maintenance' principles applying; it's not like you'ld have to pull a new wire!

Though, I must confess to being something of a hypocrite as to these newer fittings. They've been out for over five years - and I have yet to see one, let alone install one. Bridgeport, T&B, etal., seem quite happy to continue making the older style, and I'm not even sure the local parts houses have the newer ones on the shelf. Nor does it seem that the AHJ's are looking for them; that Reno is in the "desert" may be 'why.'

We work all over Ca. Many supply houses haven't stocked the
Raintight fittings until recently. We finally found a jurisdiction that is requiring them and are now eating the cost difference. It seems crazy that you have to use rainproof fittings on a sleeve or a conduit that ends with an open end like at a ground rod. I also envision conduits prematurely rotting from the inside in certain instances. But then again maybe I'm biased because I'm losing a chunk of change.

eating the cost difference--

Why, Job start after the code change? or you not counting on the AHJ enforcing?
Code change makes price change.
There was a while here the bids were T&M due to copper prices fluctuating so rapidly.

Hi Leland
It's really simple. I did not count on them enforcing it. The AHJ do not enforce it until they adopt it. When I am competing against other contractors, I don't add unnecessary costs to the job. It
reduces my chance of landing the job. In this case, I
did not do my homework and failed to investigate the
jurisdiction requirements. Code change might make the price change, but not instantly.