holiday lighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

malachi constant

Senior Member
Location
Minneapolis
I am the engineer on a development property where the Owner would like the boulevard trees to be lit with christmas lights during the holiday season. The ciy is not allowing receptacles at the base of the trees, citing them as trip hazards. The city would allow empty PVC to be run from near a receptacle on the property, under the sidewalk, to the base of the tree. Then every december an extension cord would be run through the PVC to the base of the tree and connected to the lights.

Is this allowed by code (2005 NEC)? I can't find anything that prohibits it. I'd certainly like it to be allowed, as it would resolve the issue. Any comments?
 
I don't have my book handy, but I think this would not be allowed. Somewhere in or around article 400 there is a prohibition against running flexible cord through a raceway. Someone else will have to confirm or refute this opinion, however.
 
2008-400.8(6) is the restriction about raceways and flexible cords. But is it a raceway or a "sleeve". What about temporary extension cords that have a trip cover over the top? Is this so different?

Also, since it is temporary, I'm not sure if it is a substitute for fixed wiring or it would be a 2008-400.8(1) violation

Plus, since it is not in a building, where is the fire hazard? I'm not sure if the sections of 400.8 apply since it is not in a building (under floors, through walls, ceilings, etc)
 
mivey said:
I'm not sure if the sections of 400.8 apply since it is not in a building (under floors, through walls, ceilings, etc)
Click to expand...
Good point. My reaction is that it is still part of the premises wiring system, since it is on the same premises, and since it receives its power from the same source as does the fridge.

Where is the fire hazard? The hazard is not so much a fire hazard, in my view, but rather the likelihood that the owner will not take the cord out every January. If it stays in all year round, water will seep in, and will create a shock hazard. You say it will be GFCI protected? Yes, but after the owner has to reset the GFCI two or three times a day, while the holiday lights are in service, he is going to think about disabling the GFCI device in some fashion (e.g., replace it with a normal receptacle or breaker).
 
charlie b said:
Good point. My reaction is that it is still part of the premises wiring system, since it is on the same premises, and since it receives its power from the same source as does the fridge.

Where is the fire hazard? The hazard is not so much a fire hazard, in my view, but rather the likelihood that the owner will not take the cord out every January. If it stays in all year round, water will seep in, and will create a shock hazard. You say it will be GFCI protected? Yes, but after the owner has to reset the GFCI two or three times a day, while the holiday lights are in service, he is going to think about disabling the GFCI device in some fashion (e.g., replace it with a normal receptacle or breaker).
Click to expand...
I agree with that 100%
 
malachi constant said:
I am the engineer on a development property where the Owner would like the boulevard trees to be lit with christmas lights during the holiday season. The ciy is not allowing receptacles at the base of the trees, citing them as trip hazards.
Click to expand...

The first thing is to figure out how much power will really be needed to light these trees. I live near Life College and they need a sub station to light all their trees at Christmas. Will an extension cord actually supply enough power?

If all they want to pay for is some PVC then it's OK to run it because your company will not be responsible for what they do with it when you are gone.

If this is really important I would look for other solutions such as decorative bollard or pole lights that can have receptacles mounted in or on them ( not a trip hazard ).
 
The City will allow the PVC installation only if there is a letter from the Engineer (i.e. me) stating this is not a code violation. So that means unfortunately I can't let them install it and walk away.

What that does allow is for a public agreement of conditions to be placed on the installation. I could stipulate that this is acceptable by code only on the conditions that the extension cord be temporary (90 days or less per 590.3B), and that the GFI protection never be removed. The Owner, City, and Engineer would all be on the same page.

That works provided 400.8(6) does not apply to temporary or outdoor installations. That's a big caveat. I can't find any exemption, other than good logic (it's temporary, outdoor, protected by a GFI, and by a breaker).
 
Last edited:
I imagine they would stub it to grade then cap it. Stub to a box on grade if necessary. Haven't got into the particulars, but they have stated they will allow it if it meets the electrical code.
 
I seem to remember a similar thread...
The topic was a receptacle at a pitchers mound for a pitching machine. I think that someone said that they used a box in the ground with a pvc sleeve for an extension cord.

I think that if you can't find a code that forbids it, it is allowed. It's only temporary.

As for what charlie said, well you can't fix stupid. The customer may leave the cord in or replace the GFCI with a standard receptacle but that still doesn't violate the code pertaining to the original installation. You can't predict the future and neithe can the NEC.

edit: found the thread
 
Last edited:
malachi constant said:
The City will allow the PVC installation only if there is a letter from the Engineer (i.e. me) stating this is not a code violation. So that means unfortunately I can't let them install it and walk away.

What that does allow is for a public agreement of conditions to be placed on the installation. I could stipulate that this is acceptable by code only on the conditions that the extension cord be temporary (90 days or less per 590.3B), and that the GFI protection never be removed. The Owner, City, and Engineer would all be on the same page.

That works provided 400.8(6) does not apply to temporary or outdoor installations. That's a big caveat. I can't find any exemption, other than good logic (it's temporary, outdoor, protected by a GFI, and by a breaker).
Click to expand...

590.4(C) seems to allow a hard usage cord to be selected from Table 400.4. Cables rated at a higher temperature rating than the RNC are permitted to be installed in RNC. It must not be subject to physical damage. No more than 90 days. All work must comply with the code. I don't see anything that glaringly opposes this type of installation. After 90 days, take it all out, put it back in, it's good for another 90 days. Stipulate as much safety as you can when you write up the letter. :smile:
 
malachi, At the end of the tables in article 400, there are 13 notes. Note 13

says if the cord has the " W " designation it can be used in a wet location,

PVC conduit run underground is a wet location, I don't know if this helps you

or not.
 
What if it was a post? Like a couple feet high? Is that still a trip hazard? Maybe get some nice trash cans for the boulevard to keep it looking nice for some extra incentive to the city to allow it. Set the trash cans right by the posts so they aren't as noticeable
 
MF Dagger said:
What if it was a post? Like a couple feet high? Is that still a trip hazard? Maybe get some nice trash cans for the boulevard to keep it looking nice for some extra incentive to the city to allow it. Set the trash cans right by the posts so they aren't as noticeable
Click to expand...


Or some "Keep Your City Clean" signs. :smile:
 
charlie b said:
I don't have my book handy, but I think this would not be allowed. Somewhere in or around article 400 there is a prohibition against running flexible cord through a raceway. Someone else will have to confirm or refute this opinion, however.
Click to expand...

If an empty PVC conduit stubs up NEAR a receptacle and terminates at a stub up NEAR the base of a tree, it is not a raceway at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top