MISparky72
New User
- Location
- Watford City North Dakota
Does MC-HL have to be protected coming out of the ground that are being use as service feeders?
MC-HL protection requirements?
- Thread starter MISparky72
- Start date
- Status
captainwireman
Senior Member
- Location
- USA, mostly.
300.5 (D)(1)
I would say yes.
I would say yes.
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
With regard to "protection", MC-HL isn't special; it's just another Type MC. However, the question arises whether the armor is an "enclosure" or not. See the definition in 330.2 ; i.e., what "encloses" except an "enclosure". Section 300.5(D)(1) is basically concerned with the conductors. It's unfortunate the entire assembly is called a "cable". Good old English ambiguity at work.
There is a general requirement in Section 300.4 that requires everything (including RMC) to have protection "where subject to physical damage."
If MC (-HL or not) is not "subject to damage" by nature of its location, I personally see no requirement for auxiliary protection.
captainwireman
Senior Member
- Location
- USA, mostly.
Looking at 110.28, and provided all other details are met, "shall be marked with an enclosure-type number as shown in Table 110.28"
Since MC-HL does not have this marking, would it not fail to qualify for an "approved enclosure" as specified?
I see your point but it seems the specific definitions of "Enclosed" and "Enclosure" in article 100 are two different things and not necessarily inclusive of each other. I would think this goes to the listing, not the definition. What do you think?
Since MC-HL does not have this marking, would it not fail to qualify for an "approved enclosure" as specified?
I see your point but it seems the specific definitions of "Enclosed" and "Enclosure" in article 100 are two different things and not necessarily inclusive of each other. I would think this goes to the listing, not the definition. What do you think?
- Location
- Mission Viejo, CA
- Occupation
- Professional Electrical Engineer
Section 110.28 doesn't define either enclosed or enclosure; Article 100 does. Enclosed and enclosure are both defined in terms of "surrounded" and basically for the same purposes, ( ... prevents persons from accidentally contacting energized parts ...) That sounds like a fair amount of mutual inclusion to me. Most raceways (also defined in terms of enclosed) are not marked with an enclosure Type. Some, like wireways, may be.
I have already expressed my opinion,:"If MC (-HL or not) is not "subject to damage" by nature of its location, I personally see no requirement for auxiliary protection."
The more "wordsmithing" the Code goes through, the more ambiguous it becomes. It's hard enough for the Code Making Panels to coordinate content, it's a monumental task for the Technical Correlating Committee ,hence the need for 90.1(C) and 90.4, first paragraph (although it's a responsibility not a free grant of prerogative).
I have already expressed my opinion,:"If MC (-HL or not) is not "subject to damage" by nature of its location, I personally see no requirement for auxiliary protection."
The more "wordsmithing" the Code goes through, the more ambiguous it becomes. It's hard enough for the Code Making Panels to coordinate content, it's a monumental task for the Technical Correlating Committee ,hence the need for 90.1(C) and 90.4, first paragraph (although it's a responsibility not a free grant of prerogative).
- Status