When installing MC-HL cable in a industrial establishment with restricted access (501.10 c ) would the installation subject to article 300.5 D?
300.5 D 1
In my opinion, yes.
First, I am not seeing section 501.10(c) as stated in your question. However, I do see 501.10(A)(1)(c).
Second, the general rules as expressed 90.3 remind us that Chapters 1-4 apply generally and Chapters 5-7 can and do supplement or modify any of the chapters 1-4. Now, a change in the 2017 NEC expresses that Chapters 5-7 can supplement and modify any of chapters 1-7. However, the point is the use of a product within section 501.10(A)(1)(c) simply permits it use while the general rules of 300.5 still governs the location of the install, which in this case is obviously an underground application based (assumption) on your reference to 300.5.
I do not see anything within the language that would exclude the requirements of 300.5(D). If this was the case there would more than likely an exception much like what you see under 501.10(A)(1). While this exception is really to the use of PVC and/or RTRC in place of RMC or IMC....but you get the point.
Again these are only my opinions and you and others are always free to disagree with my interpretation.
I agree with Paul, yes the requirements would apply as currently written. However, have the discussion with your AHJ too. MC cable that is listed for direct burial has to pass a crush test that applies 1000 lbf applied for 60 seconds by a steel plate in additional to the standard crush and impact tests required in UL 1569. The inspector may view the metal armor as providing the required physical protection for the conductors.
Always great advice to consult the local AHJ because you just never know what they may accept. However, they should only accept something that is substantially equivalent under their powers given in section 90.4. Never the less as you know sometimes that can be a challenge for some jurisdictions.
In regards to the crush and impact, the PVC Jacketed MC shall meet a 1000 lbf crush test to determine the strength of the PVC shealthing material and associated conductors and insulation and so on for the direct burial rated products as stated below:
[UL 1569] 26.1 Finished cable that is marked [see 40.1(j)] to indicate that the cable is for direct burial (see 14.1) shall withstand without rupture of the overall jacket, and without rupture of the insulation on any circuit conductor or any insulated grounding conductor, 1000 lbf (4448 N) (454 kgf) applied for 60 seconds by a flat horizontal steel plate that crushes the cable at the point at which the cable is laid over a steel rod. The test shall be conducted and the results evaluated as described in 26.2 – 26.6.
All type MC Cable has to meet the following originally as well even before the test conducted in 26.1as well, as shown here:
25.6 The length of cable being tested is to be advanced to and crushed at each of the successive marks for a total of ten crushes. Round cable is not acceptable if the average of the ten crushing trials is less than 1000 lbf (4448 N) (454 kgf) for a test sample containing 14 AWG conductors. Round cable is not acceptable if the average of the ten crushing trials is less than 2000 lbf (8896 N) (907 kgf) for a test sample containing 2 AWG conductors. Flat cable containing 14 AWG conductors is not acceptable if the average of the ten crushing trials is less than 1000 lbf (4448 N) (454 kgf) for either test length. Flat cable containing 2 AWG conductors is not acceptable if the average of the ten crushing trials is less than 2000 lbf (8896 N) (907 kgf) for either test length.
Now the only difference in UL 2225 which deals with the Cables and Cable-Fittings For Use In Hazardous (Classified) Locations is that the values used on the 14 AWG sample in UL 1569 is increased from 1000 lbf to 1500 lbf. The 2 AWG remains at 2000 lbf even with MC-HL in terms of the testing standards.
However most AHJ's will not accept that information for "field" applications due to the statements found in section 330.12 Uses Not Permitted, subsection (1) which says " Where subject to physical damage." which will rule out Type MC Cable of any type if the location is considered as such. However, I sure would support your efforts in PUSHING THAT ENVELOPE as we (manufacturers) have been trying for years to get the members of various committees in NFPA 99 and other standards to recognize Type MC cable as being substantially adequate for such locations....just like EMT, we happen to feel that Type MC Cable is substantially equivalent but the raceways folks (Yes, Im picking on my NEMA RN-5 buddies a bit on that statement) will fight that statement tooth and nail. Why - Because if we can make them understand that Type MC Cable is robust and an equivalent to EMT ( which again many disagree, which is fine) then it opens doors up in section 517.31(C)(3) without the limitations found in 517.31(C)(3)(3)(a)-(f).
Anyway good luck on your installation....let us know how it goes!
Retrieving data ...