SEU Protection

[jusme123]

I recently saw SEU cable entering a building at the height of the sidewalk. Its in NY and it snows, a shovel could and probable has struck this cable. Should the code define protection of SEU cable better, maybe even a height for protection (ie, any height below 2')?

 

[peter d]

I live in the land of SEU cable and I've never once seen it damaged and it's always run very close to the ground. People just seem to have an inherent fear or knowledge not to mess with electrical stuff, unless it's a metal thief.

 

[iwire]

I recently saw SEU cable entering a building at the height of the sidewalk. Its in NY and it snows, a shovel could and probable has struck this cable. Should the code define protection of SEU cable better, maybe even a height for protection (ie, any height below 2')?

I don't think more rules needed to be added to the NEC without clear substantiation for them.

 

[ActionDave]

I don't think more rules needed to be added to the NEC without clear substantiation for them.

Interesting. I wonder if this way of thinking has any chance of catching on.

 

[iwire]

Interesting. I wonder if this way of thinking has any chance of catching on.

:happysad::weeping:

 

[jusme123]

I don't think more rules needed to be added to the NEC without clear substantiation for them.

a snow shovel into a SEU cable that some inspector thought it was ok to install that way. Inspectors are no different than electricians, theres good and bad ones. I saw the safety hazard (snow/ice removal) as soon as I saw the cable enter the building 1/4" above the finished, PUBLIC sidewalk, an accident waiting to happen (hope its a wood handled shovel)

 

[iwire]

a snow shovel into a SEU cable that some inspector thought it was ok to install that way. Inspectors are no different than electricians, theres good and bad ones. I saw the safety hazard as soon as I saw the cable enter the building 1/4" above the finished, PUBLIC sidewalk, an accident wait to happen (hope its a wood handled shovel)

That is a feeling, an opinion, a guess, whatever you want to call it.

But it is not a list of of property damage or personal injury that could have been prevented by general requirement for protection at a certain height.

In the case you describe above don't you think the inspector could already cite one of the following?

300.4 Protection Against Physical Damage. Where subject
to physical damage, conductors, raceways, and cables
shall be protected.

Or

338.12 Uses Not Permitted.

(A) Service-Entrance Cable. Service-entrance cable (SE)
shall not be used under the following conditions or in the
following locations:

(1) Where subject to physical damage unless protected in
accordance with 230.50(B)

230.50 Protection Against Physical Damage.

(B) All Other Service-Entrance Conductors. All other
service-entrance conductors, other than underground ser
vice entrance conductors, shall be protected against physical
damage as specified in 230.50(B)(1) or (B)(2).

(1) Service-Entrance Cables. Service-entrance cables,
where subject to physical damage, shall be protected by any
of the following:

(1) Rigid metal conduit

(2) Intermediate metal conduit

(3) Schedule 80 PVC conduit

(4) Electrical metallic tubing

(5) Reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (RTRC)

(6) Other approved means

(2) Other Than Service-Entrance Cables. Individual open
conductors and cables, other than service-entrance cables,
shall not be installed within 3.0 m (10 ft) of grade level or
where exposed to physical damage.

Exception: Type MI and Type MC cable shall be permitted
within 3.0 m (10 ft) of grade level where not exposed to
physical damage or where protected in accordance with
300.5(D).

 

[jusme123]

that's my point, if somethings are left to interpretation, they fail miserable.

This SEU is before the main breaker, and fused quit high by power co. JMO

 

[iwire]

that's my point, if somethings are left to interpretation, they fail miserable.

My point is if you make a firm rule such as "a height for protection (ie, any height below 2')? " it also fails because it results in protection being required when it really is not needed.

This SEU is before the main breaker, and fused quit high by power co.

Not even fused really.

 

[jusme123]

My point is if you make a firm rule such as "a height for protection (ie, any height below 2')? " it also fails because it results in protection being required when it really is not needed.



Not even fused really.

I looked at it and could not believe it passed inspection, and there where quit a few like that. Made me wonder, has anyone hit one with a snow shovel?

 

[infinity]

a snow shovel into a SEU cable that some inspector thought it was ok to install that way. Inspectors are no different than electricians, theres good and bad ones. I saw the safety hazard (snow/ice removal) as soon as I saw the cable enter the building 1/4" above the finished, PUBLIC sidewalk, an accident waiting to happen (hope its a wood handled shovel)

I would be more concerned with someone plowing into the SE cable with a snow blower but as Bob stated this is already covered by the NEC. IMO it's simply a poor job by the inspector.

 

[goldstar]

Do you mean in a case like this ? This bldg. is in a convenience store parking lot.

http://s87.photobucket.com/user/goldstar13397/media/meterenclosure.jpg.html

 

[mjf]

Do you mean in a case like this ? This bldg. is in a convenience store parking lot.

http://s87.photobucket.com/user/goldstar13397/media/meterenclosure.jpg.html

That one looks like a wonderful case of "Let's put new siding on the house without contacting an electrician".

 

[jusme123]

Do you mean in a case like this ? This bldg. is in a convenience store parking lot.

http://s87.photobucket.com/user/goldstar13397/media/meterenclosure.jpg.html

no, its in the city with side walks that go from the street right up to house (for pedestrian walking) that gets shoveled

 

[readydave8]

Although I don't like installation as described, I voted "no" in poll. I agree with those who said that existing NEC could have been cited to fail installation. It sometimes seems that the more specific rules and laws become, the more loopholes can be found. I would rather see rules and laws that, although seemingly vague, are quite clear as to intent.

 

[growler]

IMO it's simply a poor job by the inspector.

Poor job by the inspector and a pretty dumb electrician. Just because the inspector let it slide doesn't mean a contractor couldn't get sued if an accident happened.

Is common sense totally dead?

 

[infinity]

Poor job by the inspector and a pretty dumb electrician. Just because the inspector let it slide doesn't mean a contractor couldn't get sued if an accident happened.

Is common sense totally dead?

But don't you think that in cases where specific code language is not clearly defined it's up to the inspector to decide if the SE cable is subject to physical damage not the installer?

 

[goldstar]

But don't you think that in cases where specific code language is not clearly defined it's up to the inspector to decide if the SE cable is subject to physical damage not the installer?

I think common sense should be used in these cases. Why wait for the inspector to tell you that it should have been in conduit. No one likes doing a job over, especially one that will cost you more than a few $$.

 

[stickboy1375]

In my honest opinion, if the SEU was to be damaged by some means of physical damage, than even if another wiring method was installed, that would have failed as well....

 

[growler]

Poor job by the inspector and a pretty dumb electrician. Just because the inspector let it slide doesn't mean a contractor couldn't get sued if an accident happened.

Is common sense totally dead?

But don't you think that in cases where specific code language is not clearly defined it's up to the inspector to decide if the SE cable is subject to physical damage not the installer?

In some areas they use combination type inspectors that may not even be electricians. Do you really want to trust their opinion or use your own knowledge and play it safe?


I think most electricians will look at this install and say yes it is subject to physical damage and needs to be protected.

If the electrician is to dumb to think the cable should be protected then the inspector should have caught it.