Construction implications of 501.15(E)(1)

[MRKN]

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,

 

[rbalex]

I'm making the possibly wild assumption you are actually using the 2016 California Electrical Code. (If you aren't shame on you:ashamed1 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.

 

[MRKN]

I'm making the possibly wild assumption you are actually using the 2016 California Electrical Code. (If you aren't shame on you:ashamed1 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.

 

[rbalex]

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.

 

[MRKN]

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.

 

[rbalex]

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.

 

[nec_addicted]

501.15

501.15

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/con...fs/other-pdfs/crouse-hinds-codedigest2014.pdf
http://www.cooperindustries.com/con.../resources/pdfs/instruction-sheets/if1370.pdf

 

[rbalex]

EYSR seal fittings are not NRTL certified. See this thread beginning at post #4 for a complete discussion.

 

[nec_addicted]

501.15

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-standards/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.

 

[nec_addicted]

501.15

501.15

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

 

[rbalex]

nec_addicted, after reading and rereading your two previous posts I was inclined to simply respond, "Yeah, so?" However, in fairness, I will address the links but in reverse order.
From the EC&M article:

Achieving Code compliance
Conduit seals in Class I, Division 1 and 2 locations must meet the requirements in Section 501.15(C). Sealing fittings must be listed, and listed equipment has to be installed in accordance with instructions in 110.3(B).

(Underlines mine)

What is shown on the conduit body is "SA" encircled with a "C". This indicates that CSA is the test lab involved. If one pays close attention to follow the links from the webpage you listed, they will ultimately arrive here. This is CSA's own markings page. You will note that the "SA" encircled with a "C" (fourth line down) is only a Canadian mark.

In other words, "EYSR seal fittings are not NRTL certified" with respect to FedOSHA or the NEC.

 

[MRKN]

It's ultimately up to your JHA as to what NRTL listings are acceptable. Here in California they tend to enforce everything to the letter of the law, whereas in other areas of the United States things are a bit more lax.

 

[rbalex]

It's ultimately up to your JHA as to what NRTL listings are acceptable.

That's true.

Here in California they tend to enforce everything to the letter of the law, whereas in other areas of the United States things are a bit more lax.

That's not particularly true for either California or other jurisdictions. Some are at least at rigorous.

​

 

[MRKN]

501.15(D)(2) states:


(2) Cables Capable of Transmitting Gases or Vapors.
Cables with a gas/vaportight continuous sheath capable of
transmitting gases or vapors through the cable core, installed
in conduit, shall be sealed in the Class 1, Division 1
location after the jacket and any other coverings have been
removed so that the sealing compound can surround each
individual insulated conductor or optical fiber tube and the
outer jacket.

Exception: Multiconductor cables with a gas/vaportight
continuous sheath capable of transmitting gases or vapors
through the cable core shall be permitted to be considered
as a single conductor by sealing the cable in the conduit
within 450 mm (18 in.) of the enclosure and the cable end
within the enclosure by an approved means to minimize the
entrance of gases or vapors and prevent the propagation of
flame into the cable core, or by other approved methods. It
shall not be required to remove the shielding material or
separate the twisted pairs of shielded cables and twisted
pair cables.

This seems to imply that a normal EYS within 18" of the explosion-proof box is acceptable, as long as we seal the fittings after penetration into the enclosure. Or so at least it would be acceptable for a Class 1 Division 1 location, and therefore would seem to be acceptable for a Class 1 Division 2 .. the code is not clear in this instance.

 

[rbalex]

...
This seems to imply that a normal EYS within 18" of the explosion-proof box is acceptable, as long as we seal the fittings after penetration into the enclosure. Or so at least it would be acceptable for a Class 1 Division 1 location, and therefore would seem to be acceptable for a Class 1 Division 2 .. the code is not clear in this instance.

It may not be clear but Section 501.15(D)(2) is discussing boundary seals; you still have to deal with Section 501.15(D)(1​) - seals at the termination.

 

[MRKN]

This is quite confusing to me as I would never conclude that on my own. What basis do you have for concluding 501.15(D)(2) is discussing boundary seals? I only see 501.15(D)(1) as explicitly concerning Terminations.

 

[rbalex]

This is quite confusing to me as I would never conclude that on my own. What basis do you have for concluding 501.15(D)(2) is discussing boundary seals? I only see 501.15(D)(1) as explicitly concerning Terminations.

Well, you could trust me OR you could make the logical conclusion that there are enclosure seals [Section 501.15(D)(1)] and whatever is left are boundary seals [Sections 501.15(D)(2) &(3)]

 

[AKElectrician]

If I read all this right you have a full conduit run from A to B and you pulled a 3C/250 cable into it?

 

[MRKN]

Well, you could trust me OR you could make the logical conclusion that there are enclosure seals [Section 501.15(D)(1)] and whatever is left are boundary seals [Sections 501.15(D)(2) &(3)]

Trust but verify right? Thank you for the explanation. For those of us not familiar with the subject this isn't immediately obvious.