Legal Counsel says running conduit is NOT electrical work.

[jusme123]

Honestly running conduit or EMT is not in my mind electrical work. In the states I work it has been traditionally considered so but I can see the argument that it is not.

-running copper pipe is not plumbers work
-running steam lines are not fitters work
-running sprinkler lines are not fitters work
-running steel studding in building is not carpenters work
-running drains is not plumbing work
-installing sheetrock is not carpenters work
-installing primer is not the painters work
-installing wallpaper is not the painter work
-installing sheetrock taping is not the painters work

By the way, who installs the safety signs required by the dangers of each trade.

To say electrical conduit is not an electricians job to install is absurd.:dunce:

There's an argument for everything Bob, but the ironic part here is one party makes out like bandits debating it.

 

[weressl]

I am absolutely unsure as to why Legal Counsel has determined in my state that installing conduit is NOT electrical work. Somehow they have extrapolated from the code that until conduit has wire in it it is merely tubing and does not require supervision of a licensed electrician or an electrical inspection. I find this decision absolutely ludicrous and quite frankly have no idea as to why they feel qualified to interpret the National Electrical Code in the first place. My question is does anyone else have experience with this happening and also what is your opinion on this issue.

Conduit runs take many different forms. Some require more electrical skill than others, but all do some.

• Number of bends before a pull point needs to be installed.
• On long and/or complex runs assuring that the pulling force does not exceed the allowable cable stress.
• Conduits shall be coupled and connected to electrical junction boxes or devices to assure good grounding continuity.
• Conduits are connected to electrical boxes and devices by special fittings that varies on the installation place, environment.
• Installation in Class I, Div. 1 is not possible to be installed by an electrician that is TRAINED specifically to do so.
• Who is going to be responsible for the electrical device that is damaged?

These are just some of the issues that can not be bridged.

The only installation I can envision not necessarily requiring electrician would be underground ductbanks with manholes and handholes, where detailed installation drawings with spacers, end-bells, pulling eyes and calculated pulls for the specific cables were engineered.

 

[ronaldrc]

Another thing the drawings are going to have to be set in stone with no flexibility
what so ever. Otherwise if a take off man is working with the plans and figures the job
accordingly and estimates the copper say 4 runs of parallel 750 MCM, 500 ft. copper which is
usually used on commercial jobs. Say these conductor in the end need to be 600 ft.
instead of the 500 ft. he thought because some Engineer decides to go another
direction, or the conduit installer runs into a unseen obstacle which happens often on
larger jobs.

Well who eats the cost? You know darn well it want be the Architect or Engineering Co.

Every way a person looks at this idea just causes a head ache.

 

[BattleCat]

Many things discussed here, including what ronaldrc said above me, come into play even when only electrician are allowed to run pipe. I'm sure all of us have been on (or at least know about) jobs in which 2, 3, 4, or more electrical contractors are working or have worked. It's not uncommon for one EC to continue with something that an another EC started. Pulling wire into pipe that was ran by another EC happens, so I don't see the difference if that other company was an EC or some type of other contractor.

 

[weressl]

Many things discussed here, including what ronaldrc said above me, come into play even when only electrician are allowed to run pipe. I'm sure all of us have been on (or at least know about) jobs in which 2, 3, 4, or more electrical contractors are working or have worked. It's not uncommon for one EC to continue with something that an another EC started. Pulling wire into pipe that was ran by another EC happens, so I don't see the difference if that other company was an EC or some type of other contractor.

That is an illogical argument.

 

[BattleCat]

That is an illogical argument.

No, it was a logical post.

There's really no merit in saying "We can't have another trade do the job because ________" when the fact is that the same circumstances happen right now when multiple electrical contractors do the job.

That applies to ronaldrc's idea of possibly needing more wire because the contractor who installed pipe did not do it exactly to plan.
That applies to ronaldrc's earlier idea that "Fingers will be pointed everywhere if something goes wrong".
That applies to ronaldrc's first post worrying about liability in the case of something exploding or catching fire when multiple contractors have worked on it.
That applies to MichaelGP3's post about the conduit not being deburred and damaging the wire.
Etc.

Many posts really have nothing to do with a different trade doing the job because they come into play right now even when it's another EC doing it. For you to say that is illogical is downright silly.

 

[roger]

I don't see the difference if that other company was an EC or some type of other contractor.

So, let me get this staight, you don't see the difference in other EC's running conduit verses a group of broom pushers running conduit?


Roger

 

[BattleCat]

So, let me get this staight, you don't see the difference in other EC's running conduit verses a group of broom pushers running conduit?


Roger

For the specifics that I laid out, NO. I explained this in the rest of my post that you did not quote, why did you not read it?

If a contractor runs pipe without deburring it and another contractor comes along and pulls wire and the burrs cut into the insulation of the conductors, what difference does it make if the original contractor who laid the pipe was an EC or any other trade? What would change?

If a contractor ran pipe in an odd way that extended the run and caused a later contractor to have to purchase more wire than originally bid, what difference would it make if the original contractor was an EC or not?

There have been many posts in this thread that are saying how a non-EC's running pipe can cause certain issues, but those issues exist even if that contractor was an EC. And in these situations, it makes no difference if they are an EC or another trade. So... I don't see how these things could be used for reasons as to why non-EC's shouldn't run pipe.

And NO, I do not believe that non-EC's should run pipe, but for other reasons that are valid.

 

[weressl]

No, it was a logical post.

There's really no merit in saying "We can't have another trade do the job because ________" when the fact is that the same circumstances happen right now when multiple electrical contractors do the job.

That applies to ronaldrc's idea of possibly needing more wire because the contractor who installed pipe did not do it exactly to plan.
That applies to ronaldrc's earlier idea that "Fingers will be pointed everywhere if something goes wrong".
That applies to ronaldrc's first post worrying about liability in the case of something exploding or catching fire when multiple contractors have worked on it.
That applies to MichaelGP3's post about the conduit not being deburred and damaging the wire.
Etc.

Many posts really have nothing to do with a different trade doing the job because they come into play right now even when it's another EC doing it. For you to say that is illogical is downright silly.

Electrical Contractors are obligated by Licensing Code(s) to employ people and perform work according to NEC and follow general electrical installation practices. "Other" Contractors do not. My statement stand and the above points are a completely different kettle of fish.

The logical argument is as follows: All A's are like B's and perform like C. All D's are like B's and perform like E. You're arguing that D's perform like C.

 

[roger]

For the specifics that I laid out, NO. I explained this in the rest of my post that you did not quote, why did you not read it?

I did read it and, I wouldn't take over another EC's project or continue another EC's project without visiting the site and checking things out before I quoted the new project.

If a contractor runs pipe without deburring it and another contractor comes along and pulls wire and the burrs cut into the insulation of the conductors, what difference does it make if the original contractor who laid the pipe was an EC or any other trade? What would change?

If the original conduit installation was installed by an EC there's a very good possibility it would have been deburred and inspected, at least where I'm at it would have been

If a contractor ran pipe in an odd way that extended the run and caused a later contractor to have to purchase more wire than originally bid, what difference would it make if the original contractor was an EC or not?

Once again, I would not even consider taking over from another EC with out some specifics of what materials (especially copper wire) I will be supplying.

There have been many posts in this thread that are saying how a non-EC's running pipe can cause certain issues, but those issues exist even if that contractor was an EC. And in these situations, it makes no difference if they are an EC or another trade.

And I agree with you

So... I don't see how these things could be used for reasons as to why non-EC's shouldn't run pipe.

I do because an EC has (or least I hope he does) an understanding of applicable codes.

And NO, I do not believe that non-EC's should run pipe, but for other reasons that are valid.

And I agree with you again.

Roger

 

[weressl]

For the specifics that I laid out, NO. I explained this in the rest of my post that you did not quote, why did you not read it?

If a contractor runs pipe without deburring it and another contractor comes along and pulls wire and the burrs cut into the insulation of the conductors, what difference does it make if the original contractor who laid the pipe was an EC or any other trade? What would change?

Is deburring the pipe unique to the electrical trade? Actually no. Other piping installation practices require and some has a much rigorous preservice cleaning requirement than the Electrical Trade does. (So I guess in the thread we did not address if the "other' Contractor is a General Contractor or a Piping Contractor.)

If a contractor ran pipe in an odd way that extended the run and caused a later contractor to have to purchase more wire than originally bid, what difference would it make if the original contractor was an EC or not?

None, therefore it is OUTSIDE of the scope of the original argument where the ONLY question was what problems would cause the installation of the conduit by a non-electrical Contractor. Introducing the issue of multi-contractor electrical installers just muddies the issue.

There have been many posts in this thread that are saying how a non-EC's running pipe can cause certain issues, but those issues exist even if that contractor was an EC. And in these situations, it makes no difference if they are an EC or another trade. So... I don't see how these things could be used for reasons as to why non-EC's shouldn't run pipe.

And NO, I do not believe that non-EC's should run pipe, but for other reasons that are valid.

Non-sequitur.

 

[kwired]

The electricians need to all be on the same page. If they are going to take bids for piping separate from the rest of the wiring, we all need to submit bids in the same fashion. Every "electrician" needs to submit a bid for piping as well as for remainder of wiring. We then need to submit bids with ridiculously low price for the piping but higher than usual for the remainder of the wiring, and a third bid to do both that is in line with what is usual. You could even submit with your remainder of bid that part of the contract will include supervision for whoever installs piping and a cost for such supervision, without it your bid is void, this is all assuming licensing laws change and allow for what is currently non qualified installers of the piping.

Do plumbers have other people install their piping, at least as a separate bid and no oversight of what is going on?

Do refrigeration installers have others install their piping?

Do pipelines carrying hazardous materials get installed without training and in many cases licensing of the people that install those pipelines?

If they ever allow something like this to be the norm, I would hope they still require rough in inspections and make the installation comply with whatever codes are currently enforced, and they need to make reinspection fees significant enough to encourage doing it right the first time and not just a little slap on the hands.

 

[Fulthrotl]

Many things discussed here, including what ronaldrc said above me, come into play even when only electrician are allowed to run pipe. I'm sure all of us have been on (or at least know about) jobs in which 2, 3, 4, or more electrical contractors are working or have worked. It's not uncommon for one EC to continue with something that an another EC started. Pulling wire into pipe that was ran by another EC happens, so I don't see the difference if that other company was an EC or some type of other contractor.

ahem. my shop is following behind the conduit installed by your shop, installed by you, pulling wire.

now, my shop is following behind the conduit installed by five home depot parking lot rejects, pulling wire.
you are sitting at home.

do you see a difference now?

 

[kwired]

ahem. my shop is following behind the conduit installed by your shop, installed by you, pulling wire.

now, my shop is following behind the conduit installed by five home depot parking lot rejects, pulling wire.
you are sitting at home.

do you see a difference now?

And you have one journeyman or maybe two if your AHJ requires two, supervising the same five guys that installed the piping:happyyes:

 

[BattleCat]

I did read it and, I wouldn't take over another EC's project or continue another EC's project without visiting the site and checking things out before I quoted the new project.

The same as if the pipe was installed by a non-EC.

If the original conduit installation was installed by an EC there's a very good possibility it would have been deburred and inspected, at least where I'm at it would have been

Yes, a good possibility. There is also a good possibility that a non-EC who installs pipe would also debur it.

Once again, I would not even consider taking over from another EC with out some specifics of what materials (especially copper wire) I will be supplying.

Once again, that holds true whether it is an EC or not.

And I agree with you

Ok, well that was my entire point which it seemed like you disagreed with. So hopefully we see it the same way now.

I do because an EC has (or least I hope he does) an understanding of applicable codes.

The same goes with any contractor.

And I agree with you again.

:hug:

 

[BattleCat]

Non-sequitur.

Honestly, I don't know what you are arguing here, but you went off on a tangent that I do not wish to follow you on.

My statement was that many of the excuses that people have made here saying that non-EC's shouldn't lay pipe also hold true for when it is an EC who lays the pipe. That's all I am saying, and I believe it is a logical statement, even if you disagree. If I read it correct, I believe even Roger agrees with that statement.

 

[BattleCat]

ahem. my shop is following behind the conduit installed by your shop, installed by you, pulling wire.

now, my shop is following behind the conduit installed by five home depot parking lot rejects, pulling wire.
you are sitting at home.

do you see a difference now?

I never said that I agreed with it. NO, I do not want non-EC's installing pipe.

My contention is different as you can see from my prior posts.


BTW, laws shouldn't be made in order to give our own trade work (although I'll happily take the work if it leads to that! ).

 

[kwired]

BTW, laws shouldn't be made in order to give our own trade work (although I'll happily take the work if it leads to that! ).

I totally agree with that statement. I myself do not like the same laws that actually do my business a favor to a certain extent.

Nobody likes being told what they can't do, myself included. When I was younger and had less money I did a lot of things that I maybe was not trained to do or qualified to do because that was only way I was going to afford them. I did not do these things for others for payment though, that is maybe crossing the lines, but to be told you can't do something for yourself or your household is not what our country's founding fathers ever intended IMO.

So if I want to risk electrocuting myself or my family in my own home I should have to right to do so. If I want to build my own dwelling I should have the right to do so. How did the early settlers ever make it with no building permits and inspections?

When I decide to sell my home, potential buyers can have a home inspector come in and evaluate the house I built with no qualifications, and if it is deemed to have a lot of potential problems, then I guess it is my loss, the price for not having professionals do it right the first time.

 

[roger]

The same as if the pipe was installed by a non-EC.

Maybe but, I wouldn't touch if it were not installed by an EC

Yes, a good possibility. There is also a good possibility that a non-EC who installs pipe would also debur it.

The inspection part was the key to my reply

Once again, that holds true whether it is an EC or not.

Once again, I wouldn't touch it if it wasn't installed by an EC

Ok, well that was my entire point which it seemed like you disagreed with. So hopefully we see it the same way now.

I agree with you that bad installations can be done by anyone be it an EC or anybody but the EC would be bound by the adopted code and licensing requirements

The same goes with any contractor.

If a cleaning company showed up to run conduit with NEC's in hand and having code converstions I might believe it but, until I see that in person I won't.



Roger

 

[BattleCat]

Maybe but, I wouldn't touch if it were not installed by an EC

Plenty of EC's would.

The inspection part was the key to my reply

A non-EC could do that just the same.

Once again, I wouldn't touch it if it wasn't installed by an EC

Plenty of EC's would I mentioned earlier in the thread, in NJ union work, the laborers have been doing underground pipe for a long time. It's just the way it is.

I agree with you that bad installations can be done by anyone be it an EC or anybody but the EC would be bound by the adopted code and licensing requirements

So would any contractor (EC or not) who agrees to the contract with the customer which includes following job specs and applicable codes.

If a cleaning company showed up to run conduit with NEC's in hand and having code converstions I might believe it but, until I see that in person I won't.

They don't need NEC's in hand. I know many 20-30 year veteran electrician who have run miles and miles of successful pipe runs while barely knowing any electrical code. With good planing from the engineers and decent leadership who knows a few key things, running pipe could be done by just about anyone.