Directional Boring Warning Ribbon

[kwired]

The following is a snapshot of the email response that I received from the inspector this morning.... is this where AHJ pulls rank?

Mr. Temple
300.5 Underground Installations

D ) Protection from Damage - is referring to all types of underground installations.

Trenching is the most common method used for installing electrical wiring so
“trench” is instructing the installer to include the warning ribbon.

D) 3) “Service” Conductors. The intent of this extends further than other types of underground installations because;

“warning ribbon reduces the risk of an accident, such as electrocution or an arc-flash incident, during excavation near underground service conductors that are not encased in concrete, because these circuits are not protected from short circuit or overload.”**

If directional boring can be done for the conductors then warning ribbon can be bored just above the Service Conductors.

The ultimate goal is to ensure the safety of the general public.

I’m still insisting on a warning ribbon if this Service is indeed moved underground.
Sincerely,
-------

Ask him what the words "direct-buried conductors and cables" that is written in (D) gets turned into "all underground installations".

If your locality wants it to mean "all" they really should have an official amendment to this section in their local ordinances somewhere and if so that is what he should be referencing rather than NEC content that doesn't say what he claims it says.

 

[kwired]

I spoke to another inspector from a neighboring county, he understands the reasoning for this inspectors stance on the situation. He also recommended that to avoid this, find a way to put the service disconnect OCPD before the bore, and therefore changing it from being service conductors.

So do I. The code says what it says and not what he wants it to say. He doesn't handle having authority correctly when there are still written rules that he is supposed to be enforcing as written. Unless he comes up with something else not yet mentioned that is documented somewhere he is wrong with his interpretation, if he is respectable he will admit he is wrong. If he wants to see this changed he needs to go though proper channels and submit a PI or at least get a legal amendment for his area of jurisdiction.

 

[ritelec]

Kentucky Power?

Page Not Found

www.kentuckypower.com

Requirements For Electrical Service

www.kentuckypower.com

 

[ActionDave]

Kentucky Power?

Page Not Found

www.kentuckypower.com

Requirements For Electrical Service

www.kentuckypower.com

I don't see anything there relevant directional boring

 

[infinity]

I thought that to be buried it had to be put in a hole or trench and covered in dirt? Boring doesn't sound like that to me so unless they change the code wording the warning ribbon is not required.

 

[ritelec]

I don't see anything there relevant directional boring

exactly

 

[Fred B]

How does IAEI interpret this section?

 

[Dzboyce]

I own a Vermeer 7/11 directional drill. I bought it specifically to bore electrical and waterlines under paved parking lots. All my electrical inspector wants to see is the two ends of the conduit. No warning tape required. Open trench they require inspection before cover.

 

[kwired]

All these continued replies and everyone keeps ignoring the fact that 300.5 (D) says "direct-buried cables and conductors". If in a raceway none of the subsections that follow apply, including (3) that mentions the warning ribbon.

 

[Hv&Lv]

Ask him what the words "direct-buried conductors and cables" that is written in (D) gets turned into "all underground installations".

If your locality wants it to mean "all" they really should have an official amendment to this section in their local ordinances somewhere and if so that is what he should be referencing rather than NEC content that doesn't say what he claims it says.
[/Q

The following is a snapshot of the email response that I received from the inspector this morning.... is this where AHJ pulls rank?

Mr. Temple
300.5 Underground Installations

D ) Protection from Damage - is referring to all types of underground installations.

Trenching is the most common method used for installing electrical wiring so
“trench” is instructing the installer to include the warning ribbon.

D) 3) “Service” Conductors. The intent of this extends further than other types of underground installations because;

“warning ribbon reduces the risk of an accident, such as electrocution or an arc-flash incident, during excavation near underground service conductors that are not encased in concrete, because these circuits are not protected from short circuit or overload.”**

If directional boring can be done for the conductors then warning ribbon can be bored just above the Service Conductors.

The ultimate goal is to ensure the safety of the general public.

I’m still insisting on a warning ribbon if this Service is indeed moved underground.
Sincerely,
-------

He is wrong. Starting at point one.

D- protection from damage is referring to direct buried conductors and cables. Not pvc or hdpe, nor “all types of underground installations” as he mentions. Here he is adding an idiots perspective.

“if directional boring...” apparently he knows nothing about directional boring. Sure, they can try to bore over the cable, but they are going to charge you for every bore. And what if the head hits soft soil and dives back into the original bore?

 

[kwired]

He is wrong. Starting at point one.

D- protection from damage is referring to direct buried conductors and cables. Not pvc or hdpe, nor “all types of underground installations” as he mentions. Here he is adding an idiots perspective.

“if directional boring...” apparently he knows nothing about directional boring. Sure, they can try to bore over the cable, but they are going to charge you for every bore. And what if the head hits soft soil and dives back into the original bore?

He failed to quote all of 300.5. The main part before the subparts is what excludes conductors in a raceway.

 

[wwhitney]

D- protection from damage is referring to direct buried conductors and cables. Not pvc or hdpe, nor “all types of underground installations” as he mentions.

Nobody wants to comment on my observation that if conductors or cables in conduit are not direct buried (only the conduit is direct buried), then it follows that a conduit in a sleeve is not direct buried. And that therefore a sleeved conduit would not have to comply with the cover requirements listed in Table 300.5?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[kwired]

Nobody wants to comment on my observation that if conductors or cables in conduit are not direct buried (only the conduit is direct buried), then it follows that a conduit in a sleeve is not direct buried. And that therefore a sleeved conduit would not have to comply with the cover requirements listed in Table 300.5?

Cheers, Wayne

I will, sleeved or not sleeved "in conduit" is still not "direct-buried conductors or cables"

 

[Hv&Lv]

Nobody wants to comment on my observation that if conductors or cables in conduit are not direct buried (only the conduit is direct buried), then it follows that a conduit in a sleeve is not direct buried. And that therefore a sleeved conduit would not have to comply with the cover requirements listed in Table 300.5?

Cheers, Wayne

I’m trying to follow the reasoning here, but I believe the “or other approved raceways” will get you.
So a pipe, in a pipe, in a pipe, with cables in the last pipe, would be “other approved raceways.

 

[wwhitney]

The reasoning is this:

- "Direct buried" means "in contact with earth", right?

- So since 300.5(D) is about "direct-buried conductors and cables", it doesn't apply to conductors or cables in direct buried conduit.

- Now look at 300.5(A) on cover requirements. It applies to "direct-buried cable, conduit, or other raceways".

- So if I take some 2" PVC (part of a complete conduit system), say, and sleeve it in some 4" corrugated solid drain pipe I have, and bury it all under 3" of soil, there's no 300.5(A) violation, because the conduit is not "direct-buried".

Are we OK with this result? If not, is there a problem with defining "direct-buried" as "in contact with earth"?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Hv&Lv]

The reasoning is this:

- "Direct buried" means "in contact with earth", right?

- So since 300.5(D) is about "direct-buried conductors and cables", it doesn't apply to conductors or cables in direct buried conduit.

- Now look at 300.5(A) on cover requirements. It applies to "direct-buried cable, conduit, or other raceways".

- So if I take some 2" PVC (part of a complete conduit system), say, and sleeve it in some 4" corrugated solid drain pipe I have, and bury it all under 3" of soil, there's no 300.5(A) violation, because the conduit is not "direct-buried".

Are we OK with this result? If not, is there a problem with defining "direct-buried" as "in contact with earth"?

Cheers, Wayne

Nice try, but then your not using the corrugated solid drain pipe as intended...
Here you would get into workmanship..

 

[wwhitney]

Nice try, but then your not using the corrugated solid drain pipe as intended...

Not aware of any requirements on what materials can be used as sleeves (other than, say, fire rated penetrations). But if you'd prefer a different material, take your pick.

Here you would get into workmanship..

Not enforceable.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ritelec]

300.5(D) PROTECTION FROM DAMAGE 1through 4
300.5 (D)(3) SERVICE CONDUCTORS...
not encased in concrete identified with warning tape

 

[electrofelon]

The reasoning is this:

- "Direct buried" means "in contact with earth", right?

- So since 300.5(D) is about "direct-buried conductors and cables", it doesn't apply to conductors or cables in direct buried conduit.

- Now look at 300.5(A) on cover requirements. It applies to "direct-buried cable, conduit, or other raceways".

- So if I take some 2" PVC (part of a complete conduit system), say, and sleeve it in some 4" corrugated solid drain pipe I have, and bury it all under 3" of soil, there's no 300.5(A) violation, because the conduit is not "direct-buried".

Are we OK with this result? If not, is there a problem with defining "direct-buried" as "in contact with earth"?

Cheers, Wayne

Or, how about using Type USE-2 in a non NEC "conduit" such as that black corrugated drainage pipe. Is it directly buried? One could argue the drain pipe is invisible to the NEC.

 

[electrofelon]

But my previous post is off topic, just want to state again what Kwired said in post #41. The inspector is blatantly, utterly, completely, and clearly wrong. D does NOT refer to "all types of underground installations". And (D)(3) DOES NOT refer to "other types of underground installations. Where did this guy learn how to read, a correspondence course??