Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Construction implications of 501.15(E)(1)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    58

    Construction implications of 501.15(E)(1)

    Re: 501.15(E)(1): "... Multiconductor .. cables with a gas/vaportight continuous sheath capable of transmitting gases or vapors through the cable core that are installed in Division 2 location shall be sealed with a listed fitting after the jacket and any other coverings have been removed ... ".


    We have a situation where we have a 250MCM 3/C cable capable of transmitting gases/vapors through the core fed from a non-hazardous source into a Class 1 Div 2 Group D area supplying a switchrack with explosion-proof gear. So necessarily we need seals on this cable within 10' +/- of the boundary, and within 18" of the main breaker.


    Now the electricians have already pulled this cable in the conduit and had planned on using the normal method of treating it as a single conductor and filling with CHICO around the outside jacket... only for our city inspector to stop them in their tracks. I agree with the inspector on this after reviewing the code.


    My question is 1) can we place the boundary seal in the 10 feet of the non-classified zone and thus exempt ourselves from the requirements of 501.15(E)(1) since it's technically not in a Class 1 Div 2 zone? Ok being a bit cheeky here.

    My real question is 2) What is the best way for them to proceed? Surely they don't pull the cable back out from the nearest LB, cut off the jacket at juuust the right distance, then pull it back through conduit without the protective outer layer? Are they able to cut off the jacket and remove what they need through the small hole? How would this be approached normally? Easiest to just buy a pre-sealed termination box at this point?

    First time dealing with this requirement.

    Thanks,

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,180
    I'm making the possibly wild assumption you are actually using the 2016 California Electrical Code. (If you aren't shame on you) AND the multiconductor cable is in conduit. If this is correct, the inspector is indeed correct and there is no way to get around it.
    Last edited by rbalex; 02-07-18 at 02:27 AM.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    I'm making the possibly wild assumption you are actually using the 2016 California Electrical Code. (If you aren't shame on you) AND the multiconductor cable is in conduit. If this is correct, the inspector is indeed correct and there is no way to get around it.
    Clarification: My understanding is that the stripping of the jacket is only required at the enclosure to the explosion-proof box where the cable will be terminated. It is NOT required at the plant (Class 1 Div 2 Group D) boundary. This is per 501.15(E)(1) which is specifically addressing terminations.

    Furthermore this is clarified in 501.15(E)(3) which states that cables with a gas/vaportight sheath continuous are not required to be sealed except as required in 5015.15(E)(1), which is only pertinent to terminations.

    Per 5015.15(B)(2) a boundary seal is required, but not with stripping.

    RBAlex please confirm if possible this interpretation.

    Thanks.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,180
    You are correct that the boundary seal does not require the jacket to be stripped. AND the seal isn't required to be explosionproof per the last sentence of Section 501.15(B)(2).

    With regard to sealing multiconductor cable in conduit in Division 2, you should probably also read the last sentence of Section 501.15(E)(1). It's poorly worded and may scare you. It should be clarified to only apply at the terminations. (CMP14 is aware of this, but believes within the context of the Subsection Title it clarifies it sufficiently) To REALY scare you, consider the implications of Section 501.15 IN No. 2.

    You are now suffering the problems caused by multiconductor cable in conduit in Hazarous locations. I don't recommend it. I prefer single conductors or suitable multiconductors without conduit.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    58
    Thank you for the timely reply, and even moreso for the bit of context regarding the CMP. It would indeed be nice if there was a short clarifying sentence in this instance.


    Regarding IN 2, I agree it is scary because it is not yet intuitively clear to me how it is not allowable for gases to travel through the core, yet it is allowable for them to travel between the stranded conductors of each phase. I am not aware of article or white paper which clears this up or provides justification, down to the level of demarcation at 2 AWG.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,180
    Quote Originally Posted by MRKN View Post
    Thank you for the timely reply, and even moreso for the bit of context regarding the CMP. It would indeed be nice if there was a short clarifying sentence in this instance.


    Regarding IN 2, I agree it is scary because it is not yet intuitively clear to me how it is not allowable for gases to travel through the core, yet it is allowable for them to travel between the stranded conductors of each phase. I am not aware of article or white paper which clears this up or provides justification, down to the level of demarcation at 2 AWG.
    I may have mislead you. You still have to terminate multiconductor cables in conduit in Division 2 as you would in Division 1. You effectively get lead to Section 501.15(D)(1).

    IN No.2 was proposed by UL based on some studies they had done. They wanted enforceable code, but couldn't substantiate any cases where it was actually a problem.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  7. #7

    501.15

    Quote Originally Posted by MRKN View Post
    Thank you for the timely reply, and even moreso for the bit of context regarding the CMP. It would indeed be nice if there was a short clarifying sentence in this instance.


    Regarding IN 2, I agree it is scary because it is not yet intuitively clear to me how it is not allowable for gases to travel through the core, yet it is allowable for them to travel between the stranded conductors of each phase. I am not aware of article or white paper which clears this up or provides justification, down to the level of demarcation at 2 AWG.
    Occasionally clarifications coming from OEM product links in consideration of the carefully explained above process it has come to, suffice it to say, if Rbalex would consider vetting the two following links centered in page 20 through 25 of the digest and TSC Epoxy compound used with conduit system and either method 1 single conductor in conduit or method 2 multiple conduxtor in conduit and EYSR sealing fittings and or ES sealing hubs to avoid tearing apart the conduit system?

    Intrigue has gotten the best links I can ask permission to be presented for futther observation and much respect to the participants guidance in this thread.
    http://www.cooperindustries.com/cont...digest2014.pdf
    http://www.cooperindustries.com/cont...ets/if1370.pdf

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,180
    EYSR seal fittings are not NRTL certified. See this thread beginning at post #4 for a complete discussion.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  9. #9

    501.15

    EYSR RETRO FIT SEALS may not come as previously anticipated. Although if apologies are accepted included after reviewing the link to response number 4 in the history section I offer the following.

    EYSR discussion offered:
    The aspect not previously considered in the appeal to keep from” …tearing the conduit apart” in large capitol letters refers as not NRTL certification, although the data sheet offers UL 1203 in the product bulletin of EYSR when looking closer the certification on the actual product is ‘SA’ is what is shown on the EYSR body.
    In consideration of the posted link in this discussion ‘SA’ is an NRTL also recognized by OSHA.
    https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/nrtllist.html

    The reader could tag MORE in the immediate ‘osha’ above link or consider NEC 110.3 in consideration of the discussion and realize the 25% fill versus 40% fill and the allowance to go up only 1 size with an RE (reducer), NEC 501.15(6) when using the compound sealing directed in the install instructions might be considered.

    EYSR may not be certified in expanded version to 40% fill so buyer beware when attempting to use direct replacement as as method for EYS seals and multi-conductor cables.

    https://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-...ds/seal-dealUL Standard: 1203

    Even though the product data sheet has a certification listing established as UL1203 for EYSR which in essence is the same category of that which the above link refers to from an ecmmag article I believe I have been able to use Rbalex link above to determine an aspect taking us back to 2013.

  10. #10

    501.15

    Trouble with link above to ECM+Magazine article
    [U}https://www.ecmag.com/section/codes-standards/seal-deal[/U]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •