Tricks for Identifying Existing PVC?

[electrofelon]

So do you agree with my post #45 or not? I really cant tell from you post #49 if you are disagreeing or not. Not sure what "(D)(1) is not correct" means. Do you mean they have issued an erratum on it?

 

[FionaZuppa]

So direct bury wire can only be used for branch circuit stuff?

try to keep up
USE wire, cannot be, etc. USE/USE-2 is kinda restricted use.

And see, if PVC is being used and it is being used for "protection from damage", has to be 80.

Carlon Schedule 40 PVC Conduit is designed for outdoor applications in all weather ... Schedule 80 conduit is listed and identified for the areas of physical damage...

 

[FionaZuppa]

So do you agree with my post #45 or not? I really cant tell from you post #49 if you are disagreeing or not. Not sure what "(D)(1) is not correct" means. Do you mean they have issued an erratum on it?

Yes and No.
I see what you were describing, but I think the NEC verbiage is leading you into a rabbit hole.

I do not agree with the NEC verbiage in those sections, specifically their use of word "raceway", which is not in alignment with their Art100 def for "raceway". If I am using direct burial rated cable/wire/conductors in a earth trench, then I would not be using any raceway. And, a piece of conduit used as a protective sleeve IS NOT a raceway.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Are you just trying to argue? You are all over the place

Thanks to poorly written NFPA70, makes for lots of good debate

You say there is not such thing as direct bury conductors, then you say "branch circuit stuff" (not even sure what that means).

Read the allowed uses for USE/USE-2.

Then you say one can apply subject to physical damage to any conductors in a raceway, then you say well just this specific part where conductors come out of the ground.....

Not just any in a raceway anywhere,...... the properly buried part is protected, but the section above that min depth up & out is many times subject to physical damage, so it (the raceway itself and/or cable,wires) should be protected, and if using PVC, sched 80 is it.

 

[ActionDave]

try to keep up
USE wire, cannot be, etc. USE/USE-2 is kinda restricted use.

There are other insulation types allowed to be direct buried that don't have the same restrictions.

And see, if PVC is being used and it is being used for "protection from damage", has to be 80.

There is nothing in the NEC that says that.

 

[Little Bill]

There are other insulation types allowed to be direct buried that don't have the same restrictions.

There is nothing in the NEC that says that.

Well there is this........

(B) Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be protected
from physical damage where necessary by rigid metal
conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing,
Schedule 80 PVC conduit,

But I know it's for NM cable. Just wanted to point out that the NEC did use the term Sch 80.

 

[ActionDave]

Well there is this........



But I know it's for NM cable. Just wanted to point out that the NEC did use the term Sch 80.

Bang, there it is. Ya got me. Good thing it's the weekend and I don't have to get out of bed for a couple days.

 

[electrofelon]

try to keep up
USE wire, cannot be, etc. USE/USE-2 is kinda restricted use.

USE/USE-2 CAN be used for branch circuits and feeders

 

[electrofelon]

There is nothing in the NEC that says that.

Well there is this........



But I know it's for NM cable. Just wanted to point out that the NEC did use the term Sch 80.

There is also the information note after 352.10(F) which says

(F) Exposed. PVC conduit shall be permitted for exposed
work. PVC conduit used exposed in areas of physical damage
shall be identified for the use.
Informational Note: PVC Conduit, Type Schedule 80, is
identified for areas of physical damage.

Not sure who is doing he identifying tho, is that a UL white book thing?

 

[electrofelon]

Good thing it's the weekend and I don't have to get out of bed for a couple days.

Well If it makes you feel any better, I didnt drag myself out of bed until 900 this morning = worthless garbage.

 

[electrofelon]

Read the allowed uses for USE/USE-2.

I already commented that USE is ok for branch circuits and feeders, but Ill elaborate a bit. 338.10(B) is "branch circuits and feeders". In this section, it only uses the word "SE" and not "USE" until you get to (4)(b) The restriction from interior use is due to the non flame redardent covering.

Not just any in a raceway anywhere,...... the properly buried part is protected, but the section above that min depth up & out is many times subject to physical damage, so it (the raceway itself and/or cable,wires) should be protected, and if using PVC, sched 80 is it.

There is nothing that says conductors emerging from grade shall be considered subject to physical damage ( and thus require sched 80). I think hte writers would have said "conductors emerging from grade shall be considered subject to physical damage and protected by a raceway (which would need to then be sched 80), but they dont.

I do not agree with the NEC verbiage in those sections, specifically their use of word "raceway", which is not in alignment with their Art100 def for "raceway". If I am using direct burial rated cable/wire/conductors in a earth trench, then I would not be using any raceway. And, a piece of conduit used as a protective sleeve IS NOT a raceway.

I agree with you the word "raceway" is not the best.

 

[FionaZuppa]

There is also the information note after 352.10(F) which says

F) Exposed. PVC conduit shall be permitted for exposed
work. PVC conduit used exposed in areas of physical damage
shall be identified for the use.
Informational Note: PVC Conduit, Type Schedule 80, is
identified for areas of physical damage.

Not sure who is doing he identifying tho, is that a UL white book thing?

"who"? I assume that to be the installer, who will make sure the thingy being installed has the proper marking(s) or specs for the application or requirement of the install. UL does have a listing for such, so I then assume the installer would make sure such listing is marked on the thingy being installed, so it's kinda a "identification & verification" process whereby the installer verified the listing for use, and perhaps the thingy markings can be verified later by others, like an inspector, or even perhaps someone like the OP, etc.

But (always a but in there), you again highlight the poor verbiage used by the NEC.

 

[FionaZuppa]

There is nothing that says conductors emerging from grade shall be considered subject to physical damage ( and thus require sched 80). I think hte writers would have said "conductors emerging from grade shall be considered subject to physical damage and protected by a raceway (which would need to then be sched 80), but they dont.

??

You posted it already.
At least for direct burial rated stuff....

300.5(D)(1) through (D)(4)

It does not use those words "are subject to damage", but 300.5(D)(1) through (D)(4) kinda implies it, otherwise why would they need to be "protected".

Again, in a rabbit hole with the NEC verbiage. The whole section needs some fixin.

 

[FionaZuppa]

I already commented that USE is ok for branch circuits and feeders, but Ill elaborate a bit. 338.10(B) is "branch circuits and feeders". In this section, it only uses the word "SE" and not "USE" until you get to (4)(b) The restriction from interior use is due to the non flame redardent covering.

Is it? Maybe some but not all?

A MHF Mod wrote in 2009 (but duly noted, I am not 100% if rules have changed since then for USE/USE-2)

However, USE is not one of the wiring methods allowed by 680.21 (Branch circuits) or 680.25 (Feeders)

Ref: https://forums.mikeholt.com/threads/use-2-rhw-2.67909/post-1126560

 

[electrofelon]

Is it? Maybe some but not all?

A MHF Mod wrote in 2009 (but duly noted, I am not 100% if rules have changed since then for USE/USE-2)

Ref: https://forums.mikeholt.com/threads/use-2-rhw-2.67909/post-1126560

Yes it is. See 338.10(B)((4)(b). You cherry picky Iwire's post. This is what he said:

Yes, in my opinion you can direct bury USE for services, feeders or branch circuits.

However, USE is not one of the wiring methods allowed by 680.21 (Branch circuits) or 680.25 (Feeders)

article 680 is about pools. Maybe its not acceptable for pools, I dont really care about that. I dont like pools. Its not allowed for turbo encabulators either, but we are talking generally here.

 

[hillbilly1]

This is a long thread, so I haven't read through all of it, and this may have already been covered, but to answer the OP's original question, if the conduit has factory swedged couplings, the coupling thickness should be the same as the conduit, so it could be determined by that.

 

[electrofelon]

??

You posted it already.
At least for direct burial rated stuff....


It does not use those words "are subject to damage", but 300.5(D)(1) through (D)(4) kinda implies it, otherwise why would they need to be "protected".

Again, in a rabbit hole with the NEC verbiage. The whole section needs some fixin.

Ok so 300.5(D) is protection from damage, and it gives 4 areas where it considers protection is needed. You are saying this is equivalent to saying these 4 areas are subject to physical damage. Fair enough, I dont think that is an unreasonable interpretation, I just dont see it that way.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Ok so 300.5(D) is protection from damage, and it gives 4 areas where it considers protection is needed. You are saying this is equivalent to saying these 4 areas are subject to physical damage. Fair enough, I dont think that is an unreasonable interpretation, I just dont see it that way.

I blamed it on NEC verbiage, as I often do

As for USE/USE-2, you are right....... but I thought I read article yest that said it was not allowed for feeders and BC's. So until I find that article I stand corrected.

 

[electrofelon]

As for USE/USE-2, you are right....... but I thought I read article yest that said it was not allowed for feeders and BC's. So until I find that article I stand corrected.

Its NOT OK for indoor BC and feeders, (unless it is also marked something like RHH/RHW-2, which it often is) perhaps that is what you saw?

 

[kwired]

Right, Nowhere. I think many people misread 300.5(D)(4). Lets back up. 300.5 (D) says:



Then (D)(4) says:



Ok, so I admit its a bit easy to get distracted here, but dont forget we are still under (D) which is "direct buried conductors and cables", so the "Raceway" they are taking about is the raceway in (D)(1), NOT a complete raceway system. Here is what (D)(1) says:



So there is not automatic requirement for sched 80 PVC when transitioning from below to above grade. If you consider that area subject to physical damage, then it would be required per 352.10(F). Of course opinion on that will vary. I used to use sched 80 when transitioning but I hardly ever do anymore. I do however religously use expansion couplings, and I feel that play and flexibility makes that transition piece very unlikely to be damaged even if sched 40.

That "subject to physical damage" creeps in there again as it does for many situations. That usually leaves it up to AHJ and many will default to worst case scenario a majority of the time no matter how much you plead something will not normally be subject to physical damage.

The there is wording involved in this particular situation that maybe needs a lot of thorough reading to decipher what it really says - many inspectors are not giving in unless you want to make more trouble out of proving your point then it is worth in the long run.

I read through it a few times and it leads you back and forth enough that it is not clear cut either way and leaves too much room to argue either way. Not so sure wording hasn't changed over the years but haven't checked earlier codes yet. I thought it used to be more clear at one time the NEC basically wanted sch 80 up to 18" below grade nearly all times, maybe below or encased in 2" or more concrete being an exception.