Type SE cable in an attic - Subject to physical damage?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zacii

Member
Location
Utah
Hello everyone,

I've been a licensed electrician in the state of Utah since 1995, and a journeyman since 2002. I currently work as an electrical estimator.

In all of the projects that I've been on, I've never encountered this issue. We're doing a project that's classified as a residential building, and as part of a value engineering offer, the builder, architect and engineer agreed that we could use SE cable for the unit panel feeders.

Now, we're on site and ready to install the SE cable, and the superintendent (who claims to be an ex-electrician) insists that we have to protect the SE cable in the attic from physical damage by building a wood channel to cover it.

Of course, we don't want to go to all that work. Nor do we want him to do it and backcharge us.

The local AHJ isn't requiring it, neither is the architect or engineer; we can't find anything in the code that requires it. But this guy insists that the installation falls under 320.23 and needs to be protected from physical damage.

Any help?
 
The superintendent is correct in his reference to 320.23, see 338.10(B)(4) which takes you to 334, then see 334.23 which takes you to 320.23.

Roger
 
Vince1971 said:
Just keep it more than 6' away from the access point and your fine. 320.23(A)..... Last sentence.
Click to expand...


I agree with this. But the trick is how to convince a stubborn super?

He's demanding that we building this fancy wooden cover for all of the SE cable, and threatening a severe backcharge if we don't.
 
If you follow this I don't see an issue



320.23 In Accessible Attics. Type AC cables in accessible attics
or roof spaces shall be installed as specified in 320.23(A) and
(B).

(A) Cables Run Across the Top of Floor Joists. Where run
across the top of floor joists, or within 2.1 m (7 ft) of the floor
or floor joists across the face of rafters or studding, the cable
shall be protected by guard strips that are at least as high as the
cable. Where this space is not accessible by permanent stairs or
ladders, protection shall only be required within 1.8 m (6 ft) of
the nearest edge of the scuttle hole or attic entrance.


(B) Cable Installed Parallel to Framing Members. Where the
cable is installed parallel to the sides of rafters, studs, or ceiling
or floor joists, neither guard strips nor running boards shall be
required, and the installation shall also comply with 300.4(D).
Click to expand...
 
zacii said:
I agree with this. But the trick is how to convince a stubborn super?

He's demanding that we building this fancy wooden cover for all of the SE cable, and threatening a severe backcharge if we don't.
Click to expand...

You show them the code section and you get the inspectors approval and tell him/her that he/she is not in charge of passing or doing the electrical work
 
zacii said:
I agree with this. But the trick is how to convince a stubborn super?

He's demanding that we building this fancy wooden cover for all of the SE cable, and threatening a severe backcharge if we don't.
Click to expand...
As Dennis says, show him the code article he cited. Even though he had the correct article section his understanding of it is wrong.

Roger
 
zacii said:
...and as part of a value engineering offer, the builder, architect and engineer agreed that we could use SE cable for the unit panel feeders.

Now, we're on site and ready to install the SE cable, and the superintendent (who claims to be an ex-electrician) insists that we have to protect the SE cable in the attic from physical damage by building a wood channel to cover it.
Click to expand...
What do the original job specs say?
It sounds like the original specs called for a raceway and your company proposed SE cable?
Did your company get that 'value engineering offer' in writing?
I have seen job specs that call for raceways for circuits 40 Amp and above (after it was already run in SER)...
 
zacii said:
..The local AHJ isn't requiring it, neither is the architect or engineer; we can't find anything in the code that requires it. But this guy insists that the installation falls under 320.23 and needs to be protected from physical damage.
Click to expand...

NFPA definition Information Note: for Authority having Jurisdiction (AHJ) includes insurance inspectors, and sometimes property owner(s).

If you can provide written approval from the property insurance, the owner's superintendent may buy it.

"..For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction. In many circumstances, the property owner or his or her designated agent assumes the role of the authority having jurisdiction.."

If property insurance won't help, try selling superintendent on a conduit sleeve per 230.50(B)

Service Entrance Cable §338.12(A)(1) "Uses Not Permitted", requires protection per 230.50(B).
Conduit sleeves are much cheaper than building a soffit.
 
ramsy said:
NFPA definition Information Note: for Authority having Jurisdiction (AHJ) includes insurance inspectors, and sometimes property owner(s).

If you can provide written approval from the property insurance, the owner's superintendent may buy it.

"..For insurance purposes, an insurance inspection department, rating bureau, or other insurance company representative may be the authority having jurisdiction. In many circumstances, the property owner or his or her designated agent assumes the role of the authority having jurisdiction.."

If property insurance won't help, try selling superintendent on a conduit sleeve per 230.50(B)

Service Entrance Cable §338.12(A)(1) "Uses Not Permitted", requires protection per 230.50(B).
Conduit sleeves are much cheaper than building a soffit.
Click to expand...

The OP stated there is a local AHJ (inpsector).
 
If the builder, architect and engineer all agreed to a spec, then it sounds like they are going to be paying you extra money for a change order. Super might be right but he's gotta take it to his bosses.
 
SE cable must be protected from physical damage. There is nothing in NEC that defines what is or is not potential physical damage and is subject to interpretation.

AHJ can be someone other than city/county/state inspector as well, and can have a different interpretation of such a rule.

If you already ran the cables you have a decision to make. If you haven't run them yet, might be as cost effective to just run raceway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top