300.5(d)(3)

[480sparky]

Mike's image on this

Looks like pipe to me. :smile:

Holy cow! That even looks like Chris! :grin: :grin:

 

[George Stolz]

Last week a local boring company nailed a service lateral feeding a 2000A service on a four-story commercial building. I saw the results sitting in an open trailer at the shop, after the transformer caught fire and destroyed the service. Granted, tape would not have helped in that scenario, but I think it's reasonable to require it for conductors in raceways. It's cheap and it might prevent a catastrophe. It's not like we're talking about a drywall screw into a 1/2" EMT.

Sounds like a good proposal for the 2011 NEC.

 

[RUWired]

Last week a local boring company nailed a service lateral feeding a 2000A service on a four-story commercial building.

I was going to b*@# that they didn't use concrete , but the real problem is they didn't have the area scanned before drilling.That should be a requirement before any drilling or digging.It is in our area.
Rick

 

[infinity]

Mike's image on this

Looks like pipe to me. :smile:

So Mike's image is technically incorrect?

 

[iwire]

It appears so along with my own response, it appears maybe it was an illustrator issue.

3-47 Log #1339 NEC-P03 Final Action: Reject
(300.5(D)(3))
____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Mike Holt, Mike Holt Enterprises

Recommendation: Revise as follows:

(D) Protection from Damage. Direct-buried conductors and cables shall be
protected from damage in accordance with 300.5(D)(1) through (D)(4).

(1) Remain unchanged

(2) Remain unchanged

(3) Service Conductors. Underground direct buried service conductors or
cables that are not encased in concrete or in a raceway and that are buried
450 mm (18 in.) or more below grade shall have their location identified by a
warning ribbon that is placed in the trench at least 300 mm (12 in.) above the
underground installation.

(4) Remain unchanged.

Substantiation: Although many would argue that this change is not necessary
due to the fact that subsection (D) applies only to direct buried conductors, it
is interpreted differently by many, including expert users of the Code. I believe
the reason for this is due to the fact that parenthetical 4 contains provisions for
raceways, making the user think that parenthetical 3 also applies to raceways.
Because cables are permitted to be installed in raceways (in accordance with
the respective cable/raceway Articles), this should be made more clear. This
change also adds the term ?cables? to the subsection, in an effort to provide
consistency between the changing language of subsection (D) and (D)(3).

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: There are many applications where sleeves or raceways are
installed as additional protection for direct burial cable and conductors. Section
300.5(D)(1) and (D)(4) both provide information on direct buried conductors
enclosed in conduits as a means of providing protection from physical damage.
In spite of this additional protection, these conductors or cables are still listed
for direct burial. The introductory text in 300.5(D) makes this very clear.

Number Eligible to Vote: 13

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11 Negative: 2

Explanation of Negative:
AYER, L.: I would have to agree with the submitter?s substantiation.
Numerous proposals have been submitted for recent code cycles which
misinterpret this section. 300.5(D)(3) is clearly found under the heading for
direct-buried cables, but still creates confusion among users of the code. The
proposed wording would add clarity.
CASPARRO, P.: See my explanation of negative vote on Proposal 3-38.