Those other trades again

[GerryB]

Many of you have probably seen this. A previous customer calls me to have a lamp post put in. He just had a new driveway done and yep, the driveway guys put in the pvc. From the corner of the garage, under 25' of driveway, another 75' to the post location. The last 2' that was exposed was max 3" to the top of the pipe. I'm wondering if any of you would refuse to do the job. I did it, told him it was no where near deep enough for code and left it at that.

 

[qcroanoke]

Many of you have probably seen this. A previous customer calls me to have a lamp post put in. He just had a new driveway done and yep, the driveway guys put in the pvc. From the corner of the garage, under 25' of driveway, another 75' to the post location. The last 2' that was exposed was max 3" to the top of the pipe. I'm wondering if any of you would refuse to do the job. I did it, told him it was no where near deep enough for code and left it at that.

I would have done what you did, if not you someone else would have....

 

[K8MHZ]

Many of you have probably seen this. A previous customer calls me to have a lamp post put in. He just had a new driveway done and yep, the driveway guys put in the pvc. From the corner of the garage, under 25' of driveway, another 75' to the post location. The last 2' that was exposed was max 3" to the top of the pipe. I'm wondering if any of you would refuse to do the job. I did it, told him it was no where near deep enough for code and left it at that.

And it passed inspection?

It did get inspected, right?

 

[jaylectricity]

And it passed inspection?

It did get inspected, right?

I think you, me, and all the rest of us know the answer to that question.

 

[kwired]

If at a dwelling and 120 volts and less than 20 amps GFCI protection will lower the minimum cover requirements. But not to 3".

 

[K8MHZ]

If at a dwelling and 120 volts and less than 20 amps GFCI protection will lower the minimum cover requirements. But not to 3".

He did say it was only the last 2 feet. If the rest was OK, it shouldn't be all that rough to fix the end of the run.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

He did say it was only the last 2 feet. If the rest was OK, it shouldn't be all that rough to fix the end of the run.

Or am I missing something?

I think that was all that was exposed. I am guessing the entire run is non compliant

 

[celtic]

...at the very least, there should have been some pictures to document what was done.

If the HO can show burial depth is adequate, go for it.....if not, ask if they want to build it up ...or dig it down.:ashamed1:

 

[GerryB]

It was just the last 2 feet exposed. It was close to the driveway. If you drew a straight line it would be outside the driveway, but the dirt line looks like it is all under an asphalt driveway. I know the driveway or landscape people or whatever told the HO we can put the conduit in, and what does he know? This raises the question of who is allowed to run conduit for electrical wires? One inspector I know of says the electrician must run it. But I know this has been an issue even on large jobs.

 

[ritelec]

It did get inspected, right?

ha ha ha................................

been there.

what's a guy to do? refuse the work................???

 

[Dennis Alwon]

ha ha ha................................

been there.

what's a guy to do? refuse the work................???

As long as you're willing to accept the liability with the work then have at it. Not sure I would do it.

 

[ritelec]

As long as you're willing to accept the liability with the work then have at it. Not sure I would do it.

Been there....not that I did...............ha ha ha..........(that was the right answer right?)............

 

[ritelec]

Hypothetically .............. a conduit is run 18 or 24 inches below grade. It passes code (inspections). some time passes....someone decides they want to change the topography of the land. Not knowing where conduits are, the digg down and level the land within 3" of the conduit never knowing it was/is even there................just a thought.

 

[Speshulk]

...at the very least, there should have been some pictures to document what was done.

If the HO can show burial depth is adequate, go for it.....if not, ask if they want to build it up ...or dig it down.:ashamed1:

Or have them sign a waiver acknowledging that 1. they understand that the installation doesn't meet code, and 2. they accept all responsibility for what might happen because it doesn't.

 

[kwired]

Or have them sign a waiver acknowledging that 1. they understand that the installation doesn't meet code, and 2. they accept all responsibility for what might happen because it doesn't.

Nice try, next the owners will be wanting to sign waivers for everything to keep costs down, and we will end up running lamp cord to everything with no overcurrent protection because it is "cheap".

 

[renosteinke]

Under the drive? 4" of concrete is all the cover code requires.

Exiting the concrete, it need not be buried at all. It can just lay atop the ground. It's a legal instal.

Of course, if it later just happens to get a few inches of debris and mulch atop it, the inspector won't be around to object.

Do I like this arrangement? No. I certainly don't advocate it. IMO, it's doomed to fail. Yet, the code can only do so much - and eliminating bad judgement is beyond the scope.

 

[K8MHZ]

ha ha ha................................

been there.

what's a guy to do? refuse the work................???

I just refused a job where the HO ran his own pipe. It was terrible, almost exposed and I found out later (after I turned it down) it never saw glue.

It looks like we will be doing a new run, plus we got a service upgrade to do there.

Refusing and walking away is different than pointing out flaws and offering to correct them.

 

[celtic]

Or have them sign a waiver acknowledging that 1. they understand that the installation doesn't meet code, and 2. they accept all responsibility for what might happen because it doesn't.

How does that mitigate the next owners exposure?
Would the EI agree to that waiver?

I stand by my options.

 

[GerryB]

Under the drive? 4" of concrete is all the cover code requires.

Exiting the concrete, it need not be buried at all. It can just lay atop the ground. It's a legal instal.

Of course, if it later just happens to get a few inches of debris and mulch atop it, the inspector won't be around to object.

Do I like this arrangement? No. I certainly don't advocate it. IMO, it's doomed to fail. Yet, the code can only do so much - and eliminating bad judgement is beyond the scope.

Like I said it is an asphalt driveway. I don't think that counts the same as concrete. But maybe they were THINKING of pouring concrete but CHANGED THEIR MIND at the last minute:happyno:

 

[kwired]

Under the drive? 4" of concrete is all the cover code requires.

Exiting the concrete, it need not be buried at all. It can just lay atop the ground. It's a legal instal.

Of course, if it later just happens to get a few inches of debris and mulch atop it, the inspector won't be around to object.

Do I like this arrangement? No. I certainly don't advocate it. IMO, it's doomed to fail. Yet, the code can only do so much - and eliminating bad judgement is beyond the scope.

Look at table 300.5 again. What you said applies to a slab with no vehicular traffic. I would think a driveway would be expected to have vehicular traffic.