atcomsystems.ca/forum Forums General General Telephone & Systems Information National Electrical Code

Started a large underground job. Thousands of feet of cable feeding multi buildings. The customer does not want to pay for lightning protection. Is there a national electrical code requirement to have protection or is it a installer customer descision ???

Thanks Gary S.

Copper cables buried underground should be protected. The local code should provide the requirements.

NEC 800.90 (A)

See page 6. Section 800.90(A) "A listed primary protector is required for each communications circuit."

This has been interpreted to mean that every pair in a cable, whether energized or not, needs to be terminated on a BET (Building Entrance Terminal) primary protector.

Your license, insurance, and reputation are riding on your ability to talk sense to your customer. In the event that you can't, then I would consider demoting him to "former customer."

Gary, I know what you are going through. I'm amazed at how often I have had this discussion with people. It gets to the point where you are pretty much wasting your time dealing with them. I could list here some of the ridiculous claims heard over the years as to why protection is not only not needed, but not required by code. They are all bogus arguments made by ignorant people, some of whom really should know better.

There are exceptions in the NEC that apply in a very limited number of situations, but as you already know, the job you described is not one of them.

Put together a quote that includes installing a listed primary protector at each building entry point, properly bonded to the building's electrical service grounding point. If the customer asks for a quote for the same job without the protectors, tell them that you cannot provide such a quote. If they insist, then, as Arthur said, demote them to ex-customer. Learning when to "fire" a customer is the single most valuable skill I have ever learned in all my years, and I only wish I had learned it sooner.

At the end of the day, of course, most customers do whatever they want anyway. This is why it is good to place as much distance between them and yourself as possible!

Jim
==================================================
Speaking from a secure undisclosed location.

Thanks to the 3 answers and insight to my post. I will try to use this info with duscussions with the customer.

Thanks again Gary s

We are pissing up a rope on this subject with regard to NEC enforcement. I was in a newly-built high rise condominium in Arlington, VA two weeks ago. The electricians who wired the place ran 100 pair PE-89 (yes, gel-filled, direct burial) cables to each closet, chopped-down (yes, chopped) on 66 blocks. The resulting spaghetti mess in the basement utility room was nothing short of hysterical. There is icky-pick everywhere.

The inspectors don't have a clue about what is right or wrong with regard to telecommunications. All they understand is electrical and fire stopping practices. Just like most electricians, they panic when they see "all them pinks, greens and purples".

The gray area with regard to protection is the definition of a city block and the equally-gray definition of exposure to lightning. Both of these are subjective terms and referenced in the NEC. Verizon doesn't put protection on their copper plant in downtown DC at all; they just terminate it directly on blocks. They cite the lack of lightning exposure due to the tall buildings as their crutch.

" The inspectors don't have a clue about what is right or wrong with regard to telecommunications. "

Nope, they sure don't.
All they want is the inspection fee $$$$$$$$$!

Good comments, all. The NESC (National Electrical Safety Code) which is the "Bible" for all communications OSP foremen contains several regulations regarding underground communications cables and the means of protection, not JUST from lightning, but, also induced currents from power cables that can influence the safety of the communications circuits.

There was a recent article in EC&M regarding a supply feed fault in an underground steel conduit on the utility company transformer to inside building main switchgear. It's a gruesome and long story, but, the communications equipment and the personnel were protected from the catastrophic failure of the wire conductors and steel conduits because of proper underground cable protectors used to essentially meet NESC code rules for the protection of underground communications conductors.

There is NEVER an exception for end to end individual pair protection. Anyone telling you different does not know the codes, both NEC and NESC require. Furthermore, most, if not all, new construction is governed by the Universal Building Code which is clear in stating that the more stringent of the code requirements are to be used in regards to protection of electrical, fire, burg, telephone, data and low voltage circuits in ANY building. The liability issue is much too great for you to side step this critical requirement for circuit protection. The danger to life should trump the liability issue. I could not sleep at night if I agreed to go "cheap" and install unprotected communications circuits between buildings. The argument that the job is all underground is without merit. DO NOT DO THE JOB!

The inspectors are now just being trained to inspect communications circuits. For many years prior, the electrical inspectors were told they had no jurisdiction regarding communications circuits because the local "Telephone Companies" who all were signatories to the NESC "self inspected" and made sure there was adequate protection. Since that scope has been changed due to "owner" installed cable, the AHJ inspectors are forced to play catch-up. Get yourself a copy of the NESC and help the inspectors out.

Rcaman

After bringing the above info to customer, he agreeded to have protection installed. Now I'm up to my elbows with icky pic.

Thanks Gary S.

On the "upside" you'll have nice, soft hands to milk the cows with after all the icky pic work.

Rcaman