Need Advice on a Spa Hookup

[Jerramundi]

Sometimes the best jobs are the ones you do not do this one has red flags all over.

I wouldn't say all that. I would say if they give him a hard time any further that it might time to skedaddle.
You're blessed if you don't EVER have to deal with some pushback from the customers.
It's just a question of knowing when is too much.

 

[RDF]

Good piece of advice. Also, if you're going to do a load calculation... make sure you're getting paid for it.
Been out for a few potential jobs where I did a calculation and then the job didn't take.

If it turns out the calculation doesn't allow for this installation and you push the service upgrade and they say no,
you should still get paid for doing the calculation, IMO. I wasted a good number of hours doing calculations for free like a dummy thinking it would help me get the job. I used to see the one off calculations as something that I would just do to get my foot in the door and then charge for later, but my perspective is gradually changing.

I wholeheartedly agree. Related to your contention that you should get paid for a load calculation, I know many electrical contractors that switched to charging for estimates as well. They would refund the estimate from the total if they got the job. Those that have done so tell me that they reduced the amount of time required performing estimates that they would not get simply because someone gave the customer a cheaper price. Often it was only a few dollars difference. They are still among the busiest electrical contractors out there. I heard complaints from customers routinely that got estimates and then were told that they needed a service upgrade afterward. There are a lot of electricians or those who refer to themselves as electricians, who operate on the "get you foot in the door" method and routinely upcharge the customer afterward. It was their business plan. I'm not alleging that you did that. I also used to do load calculations for free as well as charged some that I felt sorry for, a lesser rate. Then I wised up.

 

[infinity]

I see no reason to turn down a perfectly good job. If you're the electrical contractor you explain to the customer how the job needs to be done to be code compliant which in this case means running a conduit in the slab. If they don't like it then let them get someone else.

 

[Jerramundi]

There are a lot of electricians or those who refer to themselves as electricians, who operate on the "get you foot in the door" method and routinely upcharge the customer afterward. It was their business plan. I'm not alleging that you did that. I also used to do load calculations for free as well as charged some that I felt sorry for, a lesser rate. Then I wised up.

Gotta get your foot in the door somehow... and when you're a younger guy like me who doesn't fit the typical stereotype (no bushy beard, no beer belly, no tats, no plaid shirt, lol) you find a way to make it happen. Any additional charges that came after my estimates were the result of a change in the process of doing the job. Estimates, by their nature, won't always be precise. If you want a quote and want to pay for it, then that's a different story.

 

[kwired]

Dennis is correct, right out of the NEC.

Simple piece of angle iron, U channel, etc. can resolve the physical damage aspect, which is mostly subjective in the first place. Won't solve trip hazard aspect, but there is no NEC section to cite for that.

 

[Jerramundi]

Carflex is not an approved system of protection.

@Dennis Alwon I'm still curious about your comment that Carflex is not an approved system of protection.
Am I correct to identify Carflex as LFNC.. and that your violation is based on the raceway being exposed to potential damage and not the selection of an improper raceway? This is just the first time I've heard of Carflex so I'm curious. I was aware of both LFMC and LFNC, but never heard the term Carflex before.

 

[kwired]

@Dennis Alwon I'm still curious about your comment that Carflex is not an approved system of protection.
Am I correct to identify Carflex as LFNC.. and that your violation is based on the raceway being exposed to potential damage and not the selection of an improper raceway? This is just the first time I've heard of Carflex so I'm curious. I was aware of both LFMC and LFNC, but never heard the term Carflex before.

Nothing wrong with use of LTFNC here.

The issue is determining what is subject to physical damage.

If deemed subject to physical damage it possibly can be protected by some other item though.

Many of us run same type flex from a disconnect to a heat pump or AC unit a couple feet away from a building and is sort of subject to many the same possibilities for physical damage. Fact it is laying on the surface and more likely to be stepped on however is probably good justification to call this a little differently. At same time one has to determine just how much abuse this product can take. I think it can take more stepping on by humans than some are willing to admit, but it may not hold up so well if it will be subject to lawn care machinery or snow removal machinery

 

[infinity]

Nothing wrong with use of LTFNC here.

The issue is determining what is subject to physical damage.

If deemed subject to physical damage it possibly can be protected by some other item though.

It could be sleeved through a piece of RMC to avoid the damage part. Personally I don't see how any of this is better than running a piece of PVC in the slab.

 

[Jerramundi]

Nothing wrong with use of LTFNC here.

Curious why the code doesn't include the T. I guess Liquidtight is considered to be one word by the code? Dunno.

Many of us run same type flex from a disconnect to a heat pump or AC unit a couple feet away from a building and is sort of subject to many the same possibilities for physical damage.

Wasn't there a recent change regarding this issue? Just asking for review purposes. I feel like I read something by Mike and there was imagery of LFMC being slopped on the ground to an A/C unit and there being some change to address that issue.

 

[kwired]

It could be sleeved through a piece of RMC to avoid the damage part. Personally I don't see how any of this is better than running a piece of PVC in the slab.

If running a new slab and know where you need to stub out, yes that is probably a good idea.

If the spa is ever removed that hole can be plugged without too much issue.

If running on the surface one could also make some sort of ramped cover to place over raceway, even RMC, to lessen the trip hazard.

 

[infinity]

If running a new slab and know where you need to stub out, yes that is probably a good idea.

If the spa is ever removed that hole can be plugged without too much issue.

If running on the surface one could also make some sort of ramped cover to place over raceway, even RMC, to lessen the trip hazard.

Yup, the OP stated that they're pouring a new slab. There are ways to mitigate the tripping hazard of running on the surface but just about any protection or cover solution is going to look like crap.

 

[kwired]

Yup, the OP stated that they're pouring a new slab. There are ways to mitigate the tripping hazard of running on the surface but just about any protection or cover solution is going to look like crap.

I understand. If customer absolutely doesn't want hole for conduit penetration in his new slab.....

But also make him understand you will need to drill holes for attaching whatever you run across the surface, or if using RMC maybe you can span across with no intermediate supports somehow. Home made "ramp cover" I guess could be held down with construction adhesive, for how ever long it will hold.

 

[tthh]

I get the homeowner doesn't want to have a hole in his new patio if the hot tub is removed or relocated.

What if the in-slab conduit exits as an RMC female fitting flush with the slab? That would allow you something to use and would allow the homeowner to plug it up if he ever wanted to abandon it.

 

[Amps]

As a retired electrical inspector for a medium sized city in the state of NY, I can tell you that there are circumstances where the 5' requirement for the disconnect to be from the inside edge of the water line is sometimes impossible to facilitate. I would speak with your local electrical inspector about that. Sometimes, inspectors have to use a modicum of discretion in determining whether the disconnect location is safe. As a 42-year licensed master electrician, I would get the owner to sign a statement that he is aware of the disconnect location in order to protect yourself from future liability. I understand that some inspectors will disagree with this but every situation cannot possibly be covered within the parameters of the code. Sometimes, the inspector must determine if the installation is safe. Also, I would not allow the trip hazard you described. Some jobs are better to walk away from. Conduit in concrete can be exposed and relocated if necessary and the relatively small hole that would be left behind if they decided to have no hot tub in the future can be patched with little aesthetic concern. I recall once as an inspector being threatened by a law enforcement officer because I would not approve the schedule 40 PVC conduit that was on top of the concrete. It was a potential trip hazard for his family and guests. Additionally, the hinged cover rested on the PVC conduit when it was in the open position. It was my perception that the conduit would be damaged in the frigid winter temperatures in western NY. Even though it was implied that I might be pulled over in the future for maintaining my opinion, I stuck to my original position. If the customer won't allow you to perform a proper installation, you should just walk. It will only come back to bite you when somebody, possibly inebriated, trips over the Carflex and is injured.

Thank you for taking the time to write all this. Your input is extremely helpful and I really appreciate it.

Good piece of advice. Also, if you're going to do a load calculation... make sure you're getting paid for it.
Been out for a few potential jobs where I did a calculation and then the job didn't take.

If it turns out the calculation doesn't allow for this installation and you push the service upgrade and they say no,
you should still get paid for doing the calculation, IMO. I wasted a good number of hours doing calculations for free like a dummy thinking it would help me get the job. I used to see the one off calculations as something that I would just do to get my foot in the door and then charge for later, but my perspective is gradually changing.

You make a great point. Sometimes I give myself away doing research and design for the owner and someone else gets the job.

 

[Amps]

I too was unfamiliar with the term Carflex. I will assume for the sake of this discussion that it falls under LFNC.
LFNC not permitted. 356.12(1) Where subject to physical damage.
PVC not permitted. 352.12(C) Where subject to physical damage.
and last but not not least,
90.4 The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
Believe it or not, this inspector would work with an electrical contractor whenever they could but if I personally felt it was an unsafe installation, it was my duty to require that it be remedied.

Sorry I used the manufacturer's name. Yes, LFNC. I suppose then it could be Liquidtite conduit ?

 

[Amps]

So the owner asked, "how would this job be done if the spa was to be placed on a concrete patio that was already in place"?

 

[Jerramundi]

You make a great point. Sometimes I give myself away doing research and design for the owner and someone else gets the job.

That's the plus of a larger team I suppose. They're ready to go before the lone guy gets done with the preparations, but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes for those of us that choose to go at it alone. Not everyone can be part of a larger team. I came up with the ICs. The one old dude and the one young guy in the work van. I prefer it that way. More down to Earth if you ask me, but I digress.

 

[jim dungar]

My slab was poured with the conduit in place for a spa, when I had to replace the spa the new conduit entry was in a different place. My easiest solution was to put the raceway on top of the concrete and cover it with a removable wooden ramp, so it was protected and the tripping hazard mitigated.

 

[Jerramundi]

So the owner asked, "how would this job be done if the spa was to be placed on a concrete patio that was already in place"?

Same discussion. You've got two choices: (1) on top of the slab or (2) underneath.
Below is trickier for an existing slab. You can either dig underneath or cut a channel that has to be repaired.
You risk weakening the slab by removing the earth below it and if it is to be done, it has to be done right.

RMC 90* would probably be best as it would have lowest required burial depth, depending on the thickness of the slab, and be easiest to push through the earth for that short distance (that is, assuming the point of termination to the spa is on the right hand side by the disconnect).

I would drill a hole a little bit wider than my RMC 90* in the slab, dig my required burial depth outside the slab perimeter, maybe just slightly underneath it, and try to swoop the 90* down and out and catch it on the other side... but note well, the trick is going to be getting that leg of the 90* and the 90* itself through the hole. Beyond a certain distance, it becomes impracticable because you would have to push the long leg of the 90* through. Going up would also be impracticable because the hole under the slab would have be wide enough to accommodate the short leg of the 90*.

The other option is DB cable but the burial depth is more significant and you still require a stub up for physical protection of the cable as it rises per 340.12(9,10)

 

[ActionDave]

I don't think you can direct bury the feed to a spa.