[RE-wrenches] definition of "areas of physical damage"

Wed Sep 13 10:03:13 PDT 2017

Dear Wrenches,
I have a residential ground mounted installation that did not pass inspection due to schedule 40 PVC conduit stubbing up from a trench to the inverters and subpanel.  The inverters and subpanel are hung on Unistrut, which is attached to the rear posts of the ground rack.  There is a second subpanel next to the main on the side of the house with schedule 40 stubbing up into it as well.
The inspector insists that conduit stubbing out of the ground is subject to physical damage and needs to be replaced with schedule 80 even though it is not in an area where vehicles or mobile equipment are used.  Is there a generally accepted definition of "areas of physical damage" as seen in 350.10 (F)?

The inspector has said he would consider my argument if I can provide language from the Code to back up my position.
Any help is greatly appreciated.Jerry Caldwell
    On Saturday, October 4, 2008 8:28 AM, Geoff Greenfield <geoff at third-sun.com> wrote:

 thanks for input Bill, and also for tip on zipties. We have dealt with intermittent groundfaults caused by faulty xlp!  Had to spray water on array to "find" it.  PITA!  Almost makes me want to submerge the spool next time and do my own test. 

For a brighter energy future,

Geoff Greenfield
President
Third Sun Solar & Wind Power Ltd.
340 West State Street, Unit 25
Athens, OH 45701

740.597.3111    Fax 740.597.1548
www.Third-Sun.com

Clean Energy - Expertly Installed

----- Bill Brooks <billbrooks7 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Geoff,
> 
> SS zip ties are good, but you must be very careful not to pull them tight.
> They should only be snug, not tight. These SS zip ties have been shown to
> cause ground faults in many cases. Commercial rooftops are accessible, but
> not readily accessible. Conductors must be supported properly and protected
> from physical damage. The conductors must follow structural members. If they
> leave structural members, they must be in a raceway of some kind. A variety
> of options there.
> 
> Bill.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org
> [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of Geoff
> Greenfield
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 7:19 AM
> To: RE-wrenches
> Cc: Randy; Kent Phillips
> Subject: [RE-wrenches] Protection of Conductors
> 
> Hey wrenchers... we have an internal debate going about a code section
> interpretation... "subject to physical damage".  Code compliance is a must,
> best practice is an expectation (...weighed against material and labor cost
> (prevailing wage job)). 
> 
> Application is a flat roof with no public access (locked hatch).  We are
> using DP+W "Power-tube" flat roofing system for the first time... the
> question is how to deal with the inter-row N-S wire runs... about 100 gaps
> about 24" between the E-W rows of panels.  There are plenty of 2"x2" strut
> members running under the array N-S. We will "exit" the array field in
> ridgid conduit to combiner boxes.
> 
> The flat roof system we usually use has built in wire trays... using this
> new system has brought up this question... Our options include dressing the
> XLP bundles with SS zip ties alongside the N-S struts, or using Galv. RMC,
> strapped, with bushings (or S-80 PVC) at all these walkways... or using
> Unistrut (w/cap) as a lay in wireway (to speed up labor (debatable)).
> 
> Below are some of the code references... the basic question seems to be:
> does the limited access of this roof keep us out of "subject to physical
> damage"?  What is a "Readily accessible location?"
> 
> Thanks everyone.
> 
> For a brighter energy future,
> 
> Geoff Greenfield
> President
> Third Sun Solar & Wind Power Ltd.
> 340 West State Street, Unit 25
> Athens, OH 45701
> 
> 740.597.3111    Fax 740.597.1548
> www.Third-Sun.com
> 
> Clean Energy - Expertly Installed
> 
> 
> > 
> > Next, one might argue, I suppose, that the racking system itself, acts
> > as
> > protection and that the conductors should therefore, not be considered
> > to
> > be exposed.  I disagree based on NEC definition.  That stated, I
> > would
> > consider these NEC references for more perspective:
> > 
> > Pretty straightforward NEC 100 Definitions Exposed (as applied to
> > wiring
> > methods):  On or attached to the surface...  
> > 
> > NEC 300.4 gives various cases for protection against physical damage
> > requirements.  Long article.  Worth a read.  Does not address our
> > exact
> > case, but I would say that the following methods would be appropriate
> > based on similar cases...    
> > 
> > NEC 344.10 (A)(1) Galvanized steel and stainless steel RMC.  ...shall
> > be
> > permitted under all atmospheric conditions and occupancies. 
> > 
> > NEC 352.10(f) Exposed. PVC conduit shall be permitted for exposed
> > work.
> > PVC conduit used exposed in areas of physical damage shall be
> > identified
> > for the use.  FPN:  PVC conduit, Type Schedule 80, is identified for
> > areas
> > of physical damage. 
> > 
> > Also,
> > 
> > NEC 690.31(A) ...Where photovoltaic source and output circuits
> > operating
> > at maximum system voltages greater than 30 volts are installed in
> > readily
> > accesible locations, circuit conductors shall be installed in a
> > raceway.
> > 
> > One might argue, then, why don't the module interconnects have to be
> > protected, also...
> > 
> > NEC 690.31(B) is really the key to all of this:  Single-Conductor
> > Cable.
> > Single-conductor cable type USE-2, and single-conductor cable listed
> > and
> > labeled as photovoltaic (PV) wire shall be permitted in exposed
> > outdoor
> > locations in photovoltaic source circuits FOR PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE
> > INTERCONNECTIONS within the photovoltaic array.  
> > 
> > So, I suppose that if our source circuit interconnections extend from
> > row
> > to row, then we can leave those exposed.  I don't like it, but it
> > would
> > probably have to be accepted.    
> > 
> >
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
> 
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
> 
> Options & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List-Archive:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
> 
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
> 
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
> 
> Options & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
> 
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
> 
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
> 

_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org

Options & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20170913/e813471a/attachment-0001.html>