backfill 300-5 F

[Steviechia2]

Had a request from a new inspector that he wants sand underneath the conduits for a trench inspection.
I do not see anywhere in the code saying it has to be underneath the pipe what do you say?

And as soon as he leaves the excavator will be filling the trench with anything he wants!http://forums.mikeholt.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

 

[petersonra]

does his brother-in-law have the sand concession?

 

[iceworm]

Had a request from a new inspector that he wants sand underneath the conduits for a trench inspection.
I do not see anywhere in the code saying it has to be underneath the pipe what do you say? ...

300.5.F maybe. I had one AHJ inspector tell me that the 2" minus crushed rock we dug out of the ditch could not be used for fill. No sand on the island, so we used 3/8 minus to bed and cover - he was happy.

Is this a third party inspection hired by the owner? or an AHJ? I've had job specs where sand bed and 2" overtop required. These are generally enforced by owner agent inspectors.

.. And as soon as he leaves the excavator will be filling the trench with anything he wants!http://forums.mikeholt.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

And contractors wonder why the owner hired third party inspectors. :slaphead:

ice

 

[jxofaltrds]

300.5.F maybe.
ice

300.5 Underground Installations.

(F) Backfill. Backfill that contains large rocks, paving materials, cinders, large or sharply angular substances, or corrosive material shall not be placed in an excavation where materials may damage raceways, cables, or other substructures or prevent adequate compaction of fill or contribute to corrosion of raceways, cables, or other substructures. Where necessary to prevent physical damage to the raceway or cable, protection shall be provided in the form of granular or selected material, suitable running boards, suitable sleeves, or other approved means.

 

[Steviechia2]

Seeing I didn't get much feed back does anyone else want to respond?

 

[mgookin]

Seeing I didn't get much feed back does anyone else want to respond?

You could ask the inspector what it is about the on-site fill that would cause damage to the installation.

 

[mwm1752]

Sounds like your inspector is making a call due to the excavated soils -- Which you have not described

Is the installation in a location that needs a soil compaction rating -- Another part of the story missing

What kind of conduit is being use -- sch 40/80/?

You may have a legitimate arguement to 300.5 but without specifics defined it appears as the inspector sees an issue with the installation. Some NEC codes are based on judgement calls due to the installation conditions.

 

[kwired]

Seeing I didn't get much feed back does anyone else want to respond?

Tell him to pound sand
Give it some time, it could turn into a couple hundred posts pretty easily sometimes.

You could ask the inspector what it is about the on-site fill that would cause damage to the installation.

Agreed. Guess who likely has to fix it should it be damaged by the back fill?

 

[infinity]

I had an inspector say that he always wanted sand or some other proven clean backfill. His thought was that you don't know if the soil contains contaminants that may damage the raceway. Can't make this stuff up. :roll:

 

[mjf]

Had a request from a new inspector that he wants sand underneath the conduits for a trench inspection.
I do not see anywhere in the code saying it has to be underneath the pipe what do you say?

And as soon as he leaves the excavator will be filling the trench with anything he wants!http://forums.mikeholt.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

If this is an underground service from POCO then NEC may very well be over-ridden by POCO requirements.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Seeing I didn't get much feed back does anyone else want to respond?

How much feedback do you want?

Sounds like another contractor who just wants to complain to me! :rant:

 

[kwired]

300.5 Underground Installations.

(F) Backfill. Backfill that contains large rocks, paving materials, cinders, large or sharply angular substances, or corrosive material shall not be placed in an excavation where materials may damage raceways, cables, or other substructures or prevent adequate compaction of fill or contribute to corrosion of raceways, cables, or other substructures. Where necessary to prevent physical damage to the raceway or cable, protection shall be provided in the form of granular or selected material, suitable running boards, suitable sleeves, or other approved means.

What if it is not necessary to prevent physical damage?

 

[Fulthrotl]

If this is an underground service from POCO then NEC may very well be over-ridden by POCO requirements.

job i'm currently doing, we are slurrying everything with two sack sand slurry...

except edison.

edison requires, for this job, 3,000 psi concrete on the 480 secondaries to the main gear.
the 12KV primary, they don't want anything at all, just native backfill.

they did finally allow us to use two sack sand on the primary 12KV, as it is sharing a common ditch
with a 480 volt secondary feeding a load 800' away. this facility, sometimes they drop heavy things
on the ground, up to 60 tons. once they broke a 4" water main, 4' deep from the impact. we slurry everything.

my experience has been that clean sand is what i want to dump around my conduits, as i get compaction
with just a water hose. i also don't have a nice pointy rock putting a dimple in a pipe, that will cause a
mandrel to stick there, if i have to mandrel the conduits later.

i was pulling a mandrel thru 3" conduits today, and discovered to my joy, that the factory sweeps
are just a little bit flattened at the end with the bell mouth...... in half of the 90's. it's weird. i dropped
a mandrel thru all the sweeps when they came off the truck.

something strange happened. whatever. they are under 2' of slurry now.

 

[mwm1752]

What if it is not necessary to prevent physical damage?

That would be part of the reasonable man test -- Like I said some NEC codes are judgement calls -- Still the AHJ has final say

 

[kwired]

That would be part of the reasonable man test -- Like I said some NEC codes are judgement calls -- Still the AHJ has final say

And the AHJ is not the inspector, the inspector is a representative of the AHJ, is a person that can make mistakes, and can have his decisions appealed to the AHJ. Sometimes however the appeal process is not all that easy to do and people just give in to the inspectors demands whether it is right or not. Some inspectors do forget or never actually realize they are not the AHJ, but rather a representative of the AHJ.

 

[gadfly56]

I had an inspector say that he always wanted sand or some other proven clean backfill. His thought was that you don't know if the soil contains contaminants that may damage the raceway. Can't make this stuff up. :roll:

You find this unlikely in NJ???

 

[kwired]

I had an inspector say that he always wanted sand or some other proven clean backfill. His thought was that you don't know if the soil contains contaminants that may damage the raceway. Can't make this stuff up. :roll:

How about the sandy soil in many areas where I do excavation? You don't find much better material for backfilling purposes, only thing better is washed and screened sand, and it really is not much different in most cases. The washing removes most organic material and changes the color a little otherwise you end up with about the same consistency.

 

[mwm1752]

And the AHJ is not the inspector, the inspector is a representative of the AHJ, is a person that can make mistakes, and can have his decisions appealed to the AHJ. Sometimes however the appeal process is not all that easy to do and people just give in to the inspectors demands whether it is right or not. Some inspectors do forget or never actually realize they are not the AHJ, but rather a representative of the AHJ.

IMO the term AHJ is defined as the code official who enforces the code they are certified to do so. I would tender the inspector during the inspection is the AHJ when he represents the Dept. Of course the CBO of the dept can option another rendering if seemed neccassary. Certainly there are levels of authority that can be accessed.

 

[jxofaltrds]

What if it is not necessary to prevent physical damage?

Then requiring that is wrong. Back in 2006 when Ohio adopted a state wide Residential Code we were all told that they (the state) would be more than willing to revoke the certification of any inspector that enforced 'his' code.

I do not know how many have had this happen but the state did take Akron's Certification:
http://www.ohio.com/news/summit-county-taking-over-akron-s-building-department-1.121804

 

[kwired]

IMO the term AHJ is defined as the code official who enforces the code they are certified to do so. I would tender the inspector during the inspection is the AHJ when he represents the Dept. Of course the CBO of the dept can option another rendering if seemed neccassary. Certainly there are levels of authority that can be accessed.

Did you read the informational note following the AHJ definition?

True the AHJ could be an individual in some cases, but I think in general when we are talking about a legal governing entity adopting and enforcing the NEC and other licensing and installation rules as a standard, the AHJ is the governing body, and the inspector is just a representing agent for that governing body that is tasked with carrying out the duties of the AHJ. He makes decisions based on rules set by the AHJ and is not the one that sets rules himself. Sometimes things get complicated and he may have a tough time making a decision as to what is the right method of approach, hopefully his employer (the AHJ) has the ability to help him when this kind of thing does happen and doesn't leave him out on a limb to make that decision alone. Also hopefully he knows when to turn to his employer for help with those kind of situations and doesn't make some irrational decision on his own. Good programs do work this way.

If that inspector is wrong or you disagree with a decision he has made you can still appeal to his superiors - who are also a part of the AHJ. If the inspector is the sole AHJ, there is no appealing unless you can convince him he is wrong.