Marina power pedastals..

[Smart $]

I will give you that the covering is integral to the cable assembly, but it is only a covering and it is not insulation. The manufacturers call it a jacket and a jacket is covering and not insulation. There are a number of different PVC compounds that are used in the construction of conductors and cables and not all of them are listed as suitable for use as insulation. The compound used for the single conductor UF is listed as suitable for use both as an insulator and a jacket. It remains my opinion that if the EGC is bare within the cable assembly it is only covered and not insulated. I can't find anything to say that the jacket material used is suitable for use as insulation and is intended to be used as insulation.

Your argument about the covering being integral with the cable assembly is slightly off. The subject of the integral attribute is the insulation. That is conductors have an outer covering [over its insulation] or an outer covering which is integral with its insulation.

You are correct that thera are several compound variations of PVC (the insulation and jacket material), but it is my understanding of cable construction that compounds do not differ between a single conductor and multiconductor versions of the same cable type.

Aside from documentation arguments, I'm willing to bet if you put the ground to a megger insulation test, it'll pass with flying colors

 

[RJohnsonMasterElectrician]

I helped do a marina a few years ago and we found out theres a complete NFPA book on marina's only. Just can't go by art. 555.

 

[Smart $]

I helped do a marina a few years ago and we found out theres a complete NFPA book on marina's only. Just can't go by art. 555.

You go by what code has been adopted by the jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction adopts both the NEC and the other "code" you referred to, then yes, the install has to meet both. Around here, marinas are under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers, as are many lakes across the country. Last time I read their "electrical code" it referred most requirements to the NESC, the NEC, and one other... (perhaps the IEC???)

 

[RJohnsonMasterElectrician]

You go by what code has been adopted by the jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction adopts both the NEC and the other "code" you referred to, then yes, the install has to meet both. Around here, marinas are under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers, as are many lakes across the country. Last time I read their "electrical code" it referred most requirements to the NESC, the NEC, and one other... (perhaps the IEC???)

the (other code) is probably similar to NEC 760 and then you have NFPA 72

NEC 555 and NFPA 303
I didn't know some bodies of water fall under mil spec, thats very interesting

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Your argument about the covering being integral with the cable assembly is slightly off. The subject of the integral attribute is the insulation. That is conductors have an outer covering [over its insulation] or an outer covering which is integral with its insulation.

You are correct that thera are several compound variations of PVC (the insulation and jacket material), but it is my understanding of cable construction that compounds do not differ between a single conductor and multiconductor versions of the same cable type.

That is not my understanding. With a cable assembly the insulation on the conductors really has nothing to do with the material used in the covering. I would also guess that costs may be an issue....the compound that has been listed and tested for use as insulation likely is more costly that the compound that has only been listed and tested as a jacket.

Aside from documentation arguments, I'm willing to bet if you put the ground to a megger insulation test, it'll pass with flying colors

I have no doubt that in most, if not all cases, the jacket would pass a megger test, but I have serious doubts that you could get any manufacturer of multiconductor UF with a bare EGC to tell you that the EGC is insulated.

 

[Smart $]

That is not my understanding. With a cable assembly the insulation on the conductors really has nothing to do with the material used in the covering.

I agree with you, as in most cases this is true. However, the Type UF single conductor proves your understanding invalid for all cable construction in that the insulation and outer covering are integral. Have you found any information which says the outer covering and individual conductor insulation of multiconductor Type UF cable are different (other than color)?

I would also guess that costs may be an issue....the compound that has been listed and tested for use as insulation likely is more costly that the compound that has only been listed and tested as a jacket.

Perhaps, but I do not believe so for Type UF jacket and insulation material. In my youth, I worked for a plastic manufacturer of both raw PVC and products of several types of thermoplastics. However, PVC compounding is an area which I had only a little expertise, so my belief is more of a gut feeling than based on factual evidence.

... I have serious doubts that you could get any manufacturer of multiconductor UF with a bare EGC to tell you that the EGC is insulated.

Of course. Saying it is a bare EGC is contradictory to saying it is insulated, in NEC terminology. However, I recently saw one brochure in its feature list state the conductor was "solid bare copper", and this was referring to an NEC-recognized insulated conductor. Manufacturers are not bound to using NEC terminology. A "bare copper" statement by a manufacturer could, with emphasis, simply mean uncoated in trade terminology, which is not the same as uninsulated.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Smart,
I will leave it at this...without a document from a cable manufacturer that says the "bare" EGC within the jacket of a multiconductor UF cable is an insulated EGC, I will continue to considder that EGC as covered and not insulated.