SEU Protection

SEU Protection

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 31.3%

  • No

    Votes: 11 68.8%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jusme123

Senior Member
Location
NY
Occupation
JW
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 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.
 
jusme123 said:
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')?
Click to expand...

I don't think more rules needed to be added to the NEC without clear substantiation for them.
 
iwire said:
I don't think more rules needed to be added to the NEC without clear substantiation for them.
Click to expand...

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)
 
jusme123 said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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)
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...
 
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
 
jusme123 said:
that's my point, if somethings are left to interpretation, they fail miserable.
Click to expand...



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.
Click to expand...

Not even fused really.
 
iwire said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
jusme123 said:
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)
Click to expand...


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.
 
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
infinity said:
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?
Click to expand...
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 $$.
 
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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

infinity said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top