Schedule 20 PVC

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I can not find pvc other than schedule 40 and 80 listed in the NEC, so I am not permitting him to use the other, because it is not listed."

Not listed for what ? He is using it as a sleeve for protection. not a raceway. Does a sleeve need to be listed ?

Only violation is that by it being complete he has what looks like a raceway.
What is safer and the better install ? Would you prefer direct barrial over this sleeve ?
 
The only issue I have with the install is that if the wire neeed to be removed the EC will not know that the pipe in the ground is schedule 20. He may install THHN wire assuming it's a legal raceway.

I think if he is using db cable then I am not sure the raceway must be listed even if it was a complete assembly. I don't think you will find a solid answer to this.

Is schedule 20 that much cheaper? I don't know why he didn't use schedule 40 with thhn to begin with-- seems like that would be cheaper.

Jim are you sure you're not from NYC. :)
 
Dennis Alwon said:
The only issue I have with the install is that if the wire neeed to be removed the EC will not know that the pipe in the ground is schedule 20. He may install THHN wire assuming it's a legal raceway.

I think if he is using db cable then I am not sure the raceway must be listed even if it was a complete assembly. I don't think you will find a solid answer to this.

Is schedule 20 that much cheaper? I don't know why he didn't use schedule 40 with thhn to begin with-- seems like that would be cheaper.

Jim are you sure you're not from NYC. :)
Click to expand...

Never set foot in NYC and have no plans to ever be in NY. Been in Miami and that was bad enough. LOL
 
Schedule 20 pvc

Schedule 20 pvc

Dennis Alwon said:
The only issue I have with the install is that if the wire neeed to be removed the EC will not know that the pipe in the ground is schedule 20. He may install THHN wire assuming it's a legal raceway.

I think if he is using db cable then I am not sure the raceway must be listed even if it was a complete assembly. I don't think you will find a solid answer to this.

Is schedule 20 that much cheaper? I don't know why he didn't use schedule 40 with thhn to begin with-- seems like that would be cheaper.

Jim are you sure you're not from NYC. :)
Click to expand...

My thought is that the ec is trying to use DB cable and also have the option to withdraw it by using a method is that is less expensive and not code compliant.

This is a service from a POCO pole under a driveway to a meter pedestal then underground for about 300ft. I doubt that separating the pvc by cutting a 1/4 in space in it and laughing at the inspector because it is now a sleeve is a good idea.

The POCO requires a disconnect at the meter pedestal so now a EGC is required to the residence,so I agree why not use schedule 40 with listed conductors and be over with it.
 
You could get him on the fact that DB120 is not a listed item which would make it a violation of the NEC. Items are supposed to be listed for the use or something like that. Don't have my code book handy.
 
romeo said:
My thought is that the ec is trying to use DB cable and also have the option to withdraw it by using a method is that is less expensive and not code compliant.

This is a service from a POCO pole under a driveway to a meter pedestal then underground for about 300ft. I doubt that separating the pvc by cutting a 1/4 in space in it and laughing at the inspector because it is now a sleeve is a good idea.

The POCO requires a disconnect at the meter pedestal so now a EGC is required to the residence,so I agree why not use schedule 40 with listed conductors and be over with it.
Click to expand...

Chances are that he has got the wire from a poco buddy and the conduit.
He is trying to save money as we all do.
Now that you added more details things might change. This is now a feeder so size might be factor. Does he know he now needs 4 conductors ?
I still say he can call it a sleeve. Leave a gap at bottom of either riser and it is a sleeve and can still pull his cable.
A better choice is sch 40 and thhn/thwn but he might not be getting that free or as cheap
 
DB cable does not require a raceway. In my opinion, no matter how you install this "Schedule 20" stuff, it doesn't have to be a raceway, so I don't see any reason we need to call it a raceway. Even if it doesn't have the "gap" that's been suggested.

But that's just my opinion.

Obviously, there seem to be people on both sides of the fence for this one. I think you are well within your right to call it whichever way you think is correct.

Steve
 
steve66 said:
DB cable does not require a raceway. In my opinion, no matter how you install this "Schedule 20" stuff, it doesn't have to be a raceway, so I don't see any reason we need to call it a raceway. Even if it doesn't have the "gap" that's been suggested.

But that's just my opinion.

Obviously, there seem to be people on both sides of the fence for this one. I think you are well within your right to call it whichever way you think is correct.

Steve
Click to expand...

He is correct calling it a raceway, simply because it is complete. This is where common since needs to be applied. All the man needs to due is leave a gap. What i would do is leave the gap and slide a repair coupling over the end of it . This gets inspector a legal install and i am sure everyone knows what happens next.
 
Schedule 20 pvc

Schedule 20 pvc

Jim W in Tampa said:
Chances are that he has got the wire from a poco buddy and the conduit.
He is trying to save money as we all do.
Now that you added more details things might change. This is now a feeder so size might be factor. Does he know he now needs 4 conductors ?
I still say he can call it a sleeve. Leave a gap at bottom of either riser and it is a sleeve and can still pull his cable.
A better choice is sch 40 and thhn/thwn but he might not be getting that free or as cheap
Click to expand...

Thanks to all of you for responding.I get a lot of good advice from some very knowledgeable people in this forum.It is not my intention or desire to offend anyone and I hope that has not happened.

There were some good arguments made on both sides of this issue, but I still think the the ec original intent was to install a complete conduit system using pvc that is not recognized by the NEC and I consider that a violation but not one that I consider a serious hazard, and I respect the fact that everyone is intitled to their opinion.

Now let me tell you how all this played out.I decided to approve the use of the pvc he wanted to use provided that the depth for the bd cable is in compliance with 300.5 and that he uses listed pvc when it comes out of the ground.I also advised him that I would not in the future permit the use of that pvc if db cable was not used. The idea of leaving a 1/4" gap in the pvc and calling it a sleeve does not set well with me. I think there could be room for an argument that it is now an incomplete conduit run, and it really is a cheap way out.

I mentioned that the POCO requires a Main at the meter pedestal, so yes it is now a feeder and requires a 4th wire to provide a fault current return path.Because the disconnect at the meter pedestal is a POCO and not a NEC requirement the ec felt that the 4th wire was not required.Well I disagreed, and it will be a cold day in hell before I let that fly.

Again Thank You.
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
He is correct calling it a raceway, simply because it is complete. This is where common since needs to be applied. All the man needs to due is leave a gap. What i would do is leave the gap and slide a repair coupling over the end of it . This gets inspector a legal install and i am sure everyone knows what happens next.
Click to expand...


So if he doesn't leave a gap it's a violation, and if he leaves a gap and covers it with a coupling its OK. And that's common sense :-?

But suppose I buy your argument for a minute: Exactly where does it say that DB cables can't be installed in a raceway????
 
steve66 said:
So if he doesn't leave a gap it's a violation, and if he leaves a gap and covers it with a coupling its OK. And that's common sense :-?

But suppose I buy your argument for a minute: Exactly where does it say that DB cables can't be installed in a raceway????
Click to expand...
They can be ran in a raceway. But then if we call it a raceway it must be legal and that is the problem. My intent of the repair coupling is to solve problem for both sides.
As an inspector he is off the hook as it is no longer a violation and the installer gets what he wants. WIN WIN
 
romeo said:
Thanks to all of you for responding.I get a lot of good advice from some very knowledgeable people in this forum.It is not my intention or desire to offend anyone and I hope that has not happened.

There were some good arguments made on both sides of this issue, but I still think the the ec original intent was to install a complete conduit system using pvc that is not recognized by the NEC and I consider that a violation but not one that I consider a serious hazard, and I respect the fact that everyone is intitled to their opinion.

Now let me tell you how all this played out.I decided to approve the use of the pvc he wanted to use provided that the depth for the bd cable is in compliance with 300.5 and that he uses listed pvc when it comes out of the ground.I also advised him that I would not in the future permit the use of that pvc if db cable was not used. The idea of leaving a 1/4" gap in the pvc and calling it a sleeve does not set well with me. I think there could be room for an argument that it is now an incomplete conduit run, and it really is a cheap way out.

I mentioned that the POCO requires a Main at the meter pedestal, so yes it is now a feeder and requires a 4th wire to provide a fault current return path.Because the disconnect at the meter pedestal is a POCO and not a NEC requirement the ec felt that the 4th wire was not required.Well I disagreed, and it will be a cold day in hell before I let that fly.

Again Thank You.
Click to expand...

I do agree on your call for 4th wire. You should point out to him that who requires it has nothing to do with nec. I also agree on your depth ruling because i can not give him credit for the undersized pvc. Sorry if i came off wrong in first posts but i had feeling you just wanted to make his life hard. I would ask him at both ends to make a note with sharpie that the run is shd 20.
 
Personally I don't even see a need to leave any gap.

It is not an NEC recognized raceway so it is just a hole through the ground that the DB conductors happen to be in.

No different than running a cable through a ole in a stud.
 
iwire said:
Personally I don't even see a need to leave any gap.

It is not an NEC recognized raceway so it is just a hole through the ground that the DB conductors happen to be in.

No different than running a cable through a ole in a stud.
Click to expand...

That was my point also. But for the sake of arguement, even if it is a raceway, what section of the NEC says we can't run DB cable through a raceway?? Or is there one??

Steve
 
steve66 said:
That was my point also. But for the sake of arguement, even if it is a raceway, what section of the NEC says we can't run DB cable through a raceway?? Or is there one??

Steve
Click to expand...

We can run DB in a raceway

We just cannot call schedule 20 a raceway as it is not recognized as one.
 
iwire said:
We can run DB in a raceway

We just cannot call schedule 20 a raceway as it is not recognized as one.
Click to expand...

So if schedule 20 is a raceway, we can run DB in it because it is a raceway.

And if schedule 20 is not a raceway, we can still run DB in it because we don't need a raceway.

Either way, its OK. I don't see how anyone could call this a violation??
 
Schedule 20 pvc

Schedule 20 pvc

steve66 said:
So if schedule 20 is a raceway, we can run DB in it because it is a raceway.

And if schedule 20 is not a raceway, we can still run DB in it because we don't need a raceway.

Either way, its OK. I don't see how anyone could call this a violation??
Click to expand...

No we can not run db in it because it is not listed and labeled 110.3
Now I am open to criticism for approving a violation. ( common sense)???

It is not always easy, we only have the NEC to guide us like it or not. I am sure if anything happened that the ec would never point the finger at the inspector.

Sorry, for being long winded

Thank you again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top