# 4 feet deep schedule 80 !!!???!!!



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

120/240 VAC-200A-resi service.

Yep local - @##$$%^- For no other reason than- I've had problems and thats what I want'.

Normally I would protest, I do have plans to report this Jerk, after the job is done.

Situation: working for a builder in a small town- KEY- this guy does alot of work here- So this is why I am torn-

He giives me work- lots- no questions asked- bldr digs the holes and buys and installs the PVC.

Asked me depth requirements: sch-40 18" under resi drive way-
said he remembers inspector wanting different- I said "To bad".

So bldr panics- (caves in) asks me to call inspector.
So I humor him- 
"Hows sch 40 under the driveway?" insp: RIGID 2' down".
Me:" !!!!!??? Code calls for 18", how bout 80 24" down?"
INSP: sch 80- 4" down.

Small town guy with napoleonitis! no sweat off my back- this time:
but I am thinking of reporting him to the state. That is absolutley ********!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When questioned- the answer I got:

"Thats what I require, I have had problems in the past'.

Massachusettes follows a STATE WIDE code.;

So, i caved, so as to keep the peace with the builder and his 'home town' inspectors.

However, not sure if I did the right thing.
I know code, and the AHJ has the authority for modifications.
BUT, I don't think..... "THATS THE WAY I WANT IT" - is a legit reason for requiring something that may be a regional issue.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Now I need to know what town!! :thumbup:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

leland said:


> Massachusettes follows a STATE WIDE code.;
> 
> 
> I know code, and the AHJ has the authority for modifications.
> BUT, I don't think..... "THATS THE WAY I WANT IT" - is a legit reason for requiring something that may be a regional issue.


The local inspectors do not have the authority to make changes. Many have tried and been shown the error of their ways.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

electricmanscott said:


> The local inspectors do not have the authority to make changes. Many have tried and been shown the error of their ways.



To some extent they do:

Such as geographical needs- extensive wet lands, very deep frost lines- moronic excavator brother - in laws etc.

Had a legit reason/ concern been given- no worries. More than happy to oblige.

But the old: " I have had problems and that is what i require..."

Went ELBOW deep in the wrong direction with me. 

You know as well as I and others here, to complain and get a State ruling can be a long time.

So yes, I kept 'The peace'. But am not at all happy about it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> Now I need to know what town!! :thumbup:


Sounds like Chelmsford..:no:


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

No, the local inspectors* do not have a right* for 'the way they want it done.' If its not a written local amendment to the NEC code cycle they are on, his requirements are meaningless (legally speaking only).


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Give the inspector some credit. (Sch 40) 18" under a driveway is not legal. Since you proposed something not legal, you are now a victim of what he wants.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

Do a service upgrade around here on a tract home built in the 60's thru 70's and you'll find the lateral buried at about 4 to 5' with the gas line.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> (Sch 40) 18" under a driveway is not legal.


*Cough* *cough* you may want to look at Table 300.5 a little closer.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

BBQ said:


> *Cough* *cough* you may want to look at Table 300.5 a little closer.


Oh snap! I forgot there was a column for sfd's! Thanks dude


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> *Cough* *cough* you may want to look at Table 300.5 a little closer.


but we're talking service lateral? correct?>




> 120/240 VAC-200A-resi service.


the poco requirements might up the depth ante', especially were drainage ditches , or culverts requiring maintenance may be in proximity

~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> but we're talking service lateral? correct?>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If it is power company requirements it has nothing to do with the electrical inspector. 




> *90.2 Scope.
> (B) Not Covered.* This Code does not cover the following:
> 
> (5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric
> ...





But yes there could be more restrictive POCO requirements.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

leland said:


> To some extent they do:
> 
> Such as geographical needs- extensive wet lands, very deep frost lines- moronic excavator brother - in laws etc.
> 
> ...




They have the right to initiate a change which would have to be approved by the state and put in adopted into law. Not going to happen. In Revere they were requiring a service disconnect on the outside of homes. It took a while and some bitching but they were straightened out. 


I have a hard time keeping the peace if I know I'm correct. I spent some time with the local fire prevention bureau in the fire chief's office on Monday. Seems they had a hard time reading the smoke detector code properly. :whistling2:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Since you proposed something not legal, you are now a victim of what he wants.


Proposing something illegal doesn't give the inspector a free ticket to get what he wants. The code still rules.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

yes & no argument BBQ

i'm unclear if a serv lateral , _or_ feeder after the main is being discussed via the OP

some locations do require both poco , _and_ local codes to be adressed for a service upgrade, usually the more stringent applies....

~CS~


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Sounds like Chelmsford..:no:


That guy's a piece of work. Does multiple towns too. I danced with him in Chelmsford years ago and Westford a couple years back. :laughing:

What is it with the inspectors north of route 2??? :confused1:


----------



## davis9 (Mar 21, 2009)

Nice, Chelmsford charges homeowners exactly double the permit fees. Sounds like fun.

Tom


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> yes & no argument BBQ
> 
> i'm unclear if a serv lateral , _or_ feeder after the main is being discussed via the OP
> 
> ...


The town in the op's post is National Grid country. Burial depth per NEC.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> yes & no argument BBQ
> 
> i'm unclear if a serv lateral , _or_ feeder after the main is being discussed via the OP
> 
> ...


I am going by what the OP posted, you seem bound and determined to make this much more complicated than it is. :laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> I am going by what the OP posted, you seem bound and determined to make this much more complicated than it is. :laughing:


a simple clarification would help BBQ......~CS~


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

BBQ said:


> I am going by what the OP posted, you seem bound and determined to make this much more complicated than it is. :laughing:


As always. :laughing:



chicken steve said:


> a simple clarification would help BBQ......~CS~



Here you go...




electricmanscott said:


> The town in the op's post is National Grid country. Burial depth per NEC.



Nothing to clarify anyway. The inspector has no authority to enforce poco rules or make up his own rules. No gray area here. He's a prick.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> yes & no argument BBQ
> 
> i'm unclear if a serv lateral , _or_ feeder after the main is being discussed via the OP
> 
> ...



From hand hole to meter location, Steve.
Nat grid is the POCO and they have no rules other than NEC in this area, I asked.:thumbsup:


----------



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

here in texas we did a house that needed 2 3 in pvc conduits for the service. the inspector said it had to be 4 ft deep with pea gravel and had to have 2 spare 3 in conduits. it was a 25 k sq. ft house and from the trans to the meter it was pretty tricky,,,there was a fountain close by, a sidewalk above and too many other things that would be affected if it ever had to be dug up. homeowner paid the cost and we installed it. it sucked completely trying to clean out a 4 ft. trench and then stack the pipes. it seems like we had to make something so the pipes wouldnt sit on each other,,inspector said he was concerned with the weight after backfill breaking one on the other..


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

leland said:


> From hand hole to meter location, Steve.
> Nat grid is the POCO and they have no rules other than NEC in this area, I asked.:thumbsup:


i find it highly unusual for _any_ poco to NOT have it's own service entrance rules

a quick google resulted in a 30" burial depth here>


http://www.nationalgridus.com/niagaramohawk/non_html/constr_esb758.pdf

~CS~


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> i find it highly unusual for _any_ poco to NOT have it's own service entrance rules
> 
> a quick google resulted in a 30" burial depth here>
> 
> ...


 
most are 36" here


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

As are most here McClarly

so first off, we can out this as the voice of inexperience>>>



> Asked me depth requirements: sch-40 *18"* under resi drive way-
> said he remembers inspector wanting different- I said "To bad".


2ndly, the most stringent applies could well be defered to the local the road foreman, in the case of traversing a roadway with maintained drainage ditches

i've even been told 5' by them.....

~CS~


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> i find it highly unusual for _any_ poco to NOT have it's own service entrance rules
> 
> a quick google resulted in a 30" burial depth here>
> 
> ...


N Grid is PER NEC regradless of what that 27 year old document says :laughing:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

BBQ said:


> I am going by what the OP posted, you seem bound and determined to make this much more complicated than it is. :laughing:


Nooooo. Stop it. :whistling2:



chicken steve said:


> i find it highly unusual for _any_ poco to NOT have it's own service entrance rules
> 
> a quick google resulted in a 30" burial depth here>
> 
> ...





chicken steve said:


> As are most here McClarly
> 
> so first off, we can out this as the voice of inexperience>>>
> 
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

i really have no time for unsubtaintiated contrarians crying fowl Scott

~CS~


----------



## Chris Kennedy (Nov 19, 2007)

4 foot deep? I know this guy named Al.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Is Al's middle name OSHA violator? :laughing:

I don't even actually know the trenching rules.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> i really have no time for unsubtaintiated contrarians crying fowl Scott
> 
> ~CS~


:nerd:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Chris Kennedy said:


> 4 foot deep? I know this guy named Al.


So here Al is, a whopping 8" tall in an 18" ditch.....~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> :nerd:


:red_indian::jester::zorro::tt2::donatello::stupid:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> i really have no time for unsubtaintiated contrarians crying fowl Scott
> 
> ~CS~


You have no time for yourself? :blink:


Thats a bitch. :thumbsup:


----------



## Chris1971 (Dec 27, 2010)

Chris Kennedy said:


> 4 foot deep? I know this guy named Al.


Hope he left the trench open for inspection?:laughing:


----------



## Podagrower (Mar 16, 2008)

leland said:


> He giives me work- lots- no questions asked- bldr digs the holes and buys and installs the PVC.


If someone else is installing it for me, I don't give a chit how deep the inspector wants it. But I would try to correct the problem. Ask the inspector for all his burial depth requirements and address them all at once, or after you have him corrected this time, he may well say "Oh that was for 2" PVC, if you're installing 3", it needs to be at 49" to the center of the conduit". Or alternately, every job you quote in his territory add a surcharge line item to deal with him. I have one town whose building department treats all contractors like scum, and right below the line for permit costs is a line that says "Surcharge for dealing with _____ building department, due to their continued uncooperative attitude."


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> N Grid is PER NEC regradless of what that 27 year old document says :laughing:


 please show me where in T300.5 where i can do 18" under a driveway in pvc>




> Asked me depth requirements: sch-40 18" under resi drive way


~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> please show me where in T300.5 where i can do 18" under a driveway in pvc>


Sixth row down called *"One- and two-family dwelling driveways and outdoor parking areas, and used only for dwelling-related purposes"*


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> please show me where in T300.5 where i can do 18" under a driveway in pvc>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I haven't even looked but I know it's 18" but first you show me where it says it must be 48" and schedule 80


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

leland said:


> He giives me work- lots- no questions asked- *bldr digs the holes and buys and installs the PVC.*
> 
> .


sounds like the builder is _stealing _ , rather than giving you work leland

in many localities, installation of electrical pipe is considered electrical work to be done by a qualified electrician

perhaps the issue is that said inspector has a bone for this psuedo-sparky , and has decided to make _your_ life tough by proxy

~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> in many localities, installation of electrical pipe is considered electrical work to be done by a qualified electrician


It is here ............ _when_ the NEC applies.

It does not sound like the NEC applies here as the 'service point' is usually at the line side of the meter terminals for service laterals.




> *Service Point.* The point of connection between the facilities
> of the serving utility and the premises wiring.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> sounds like the builder is _stealing _ , rather than giving you work leland
> 
> in many localities, installation of electrical pipe is considered electrical work to be done by a qualified electrician
> 
> ...


More evidence the inspector is a prick.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> It is here ............ _when_ the NEC applies.
> 
> It does not sound like the NEC applies here as the 'service point' is usually at the line side of the meter terminals for service laterals.


or is that definitionally from the utility xformer on down BBQ?

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> More evidence the inspector is a prick.


 
still waiting for that 18" ref here Scot.....~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> still waiting for that 18" ref here Scot.....~CS~


I posted it, go back a few posts ...........


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> still waiting for that 18" ref here Scot.....~CS~


Still waiting for the 48" schedule 80 reference ~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> or is that definitionally from the utility xformer on down BBQ?
> 
> ~CS~


In this area the service point for a dwelling unit is at the meter, not the transformer.

Just like for an overhead the service point is at the splice at the weatherhead, not the transformer.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> still waiting for that 18" ref here Scot.....~CS~


Open your NEC to page 138


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Here, now you don't have to go back ........



BBQ said:


> Sixth row down called *"One- and two-family dwelling driveways and outdoor parking areas, and used only for dwelling-related purposes"*


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Hello?? ~CS~ ?? :laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> Hello?? ~CS~ ?? :laughing:


He is in his thesaurus looking up new words to use.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> In this area the service point for a dwelling unit is at the meter, not the transformer.
> 
> Just like for an overhead the service point is at the splice at the weatherhead, not the transformer.


Many UG's travel up poles to serv ent caps & drip loops for pole mounted xformer attachments BBQ.....

that said...

the art 100 _Service point_ handbook commentary explains it best

the 'service point' being usually determined by the utility. many service laterals have poco _'customer owned'_ stickers on them in my area via the utility for liabilitys sake

If this is the case in your area, then the nec does not apply (so why the inspector you say?)

because Nat Grid forwards it's own installation guidelines, like most poco's do, with reference to the nec

what they are looking for, is the more stringent doctrine, thus their own 30" rule, not the fairytale 18" niether Leland or Scot can validate

Small wonder the inspector, reviecing an 18" depth involving other trades, or tradesmen not properly trained asked for _more_ than the norm

In fact, if i had a nickle for every _digger/hack serv lat installer_ here, i'd be on vacation in the caribean right now

_hack on_ fellas....

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> Still waiting for the 48" schedule 80 reference ~CS~


 
i have not made any such reference Scot

do at least _try _and play nice for once....


~CS~


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> i have not made any such reference Scot
> 
> do at least _try _and play nice for once....
> 
> ...


That's what this thread is about


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Many UG's travel up poles to serv ent caps & drip loops for pole mounted xformer attachments BBQ.....
> 
> that said...
> 
> ...




:blink:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> Many UG's travel up poles to serv ent caps & drip loops for pole mounted xformer attachments BBQ.....


Yeap.

But the utility commison sets the service point and even if the power company requires the lateral to be provided and installed by the customer it the offical service point often remains at the meter.

that said...



> the art 100 _Service point_ handbook commentary explains it best
> 
> 
> 
> > the 'service point' being usually determined by the utility. many service laterals have poco _'customer owned'_ stickers on them in my area via the utility for liabilitys sake


Never seen such a sticker, not saying they don't exist, just not around here which is the area the OP lives in.



> If this is the case in your area, then the nec does not apply (so why the inspector you say?)


Lost me ......



> because Nat Grid forwards it's own installation guidelines, like most poco's do, with reference to the nec
> 
> what they are looking for, is the more stringent doctrine, thus their own 30" rule,


Either the NEC applies, or the NESC applies, not both and not 'the most stringent'




> not the fairytale 18" niether Leland or Scot can validate


I have posted verification of that twice.

Pick up the damn code book.



> Small wonder the inspector, reviecing an 18" depth involving other trades, or tradesmen not properly trained asked for _more_ than the norm
> 
> In fact, if i had a nickle for every _digger/hack serv lat installer_ here, i'd be on vacation in the caribean right now
> 
> ...


What the heck are you talking about? :blink:


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> sounds like the builder is _stealing _ , rather than giving you work leland
> 
> in many localities, installation of electrical pipe is considered electrical work to be done by a qualified electrician
> 
> ...



Not really Steve, Conduit and labor were priced in. I did neither.
Seems I made out.
So this freed me up to do other things.:thumbup:

The inspector suffers from inferior Napoleonitis, as I am told, and does not supervise the installations, only inspects the installs.

26 years of commercial/Industrial, residential and alarm/ control work.
My inexperience has never allowed me the opportunity to see a requirement for a four foot (4') trench requiring sched 80.
I have never done utility work or high Voltage.
I have seen 4' trenches, for various reasons, but never 'required'.

I don't think the said inspector liked my suggestion of putting anti-freeze in the conduit at 2'. To keep it from freezing.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)




----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Yeap.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


>


nice cartoon

gotta link / source?

~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> i beg to differ...


You can beg all you want but what I said was true.







> you should consider getting out more often.....


I was out yesterday, today is a home day. :thumbsup:






> easy to do.....


For you, yes. You could lose a Sherpa on Everest.





> codes that coexist often validate each other via stating the most stringent applys


But not the NEC and NESC, they never apply to the same section of conductor it's one or the other based on the service point.





> T300.5 clo 3 , driveways= 24"



Did you even count the rows like I told you? Sixth row down etc.?















> bad cops
> 
> you should now....


OK now that you have had your fun how about posting anything at all to back your view points?


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> nice cartoon
> 
> gotta link / source?
> 
> ~CS~


Give up. You lost. At least man up and admit it.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

What the hell is going on in here? :blink:

-John


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Big John said:


> What the hell is going on in here? :blink:
> 
> -John


The usual nonsense. :laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Big John said:


> What the hell is going on in here? :blink:
> 
> -John


:laughing:

Not sure, but if you really want your brain to explode go check out the recent posts here ........ Profit in Small Jobs or here Square up


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

leland said:


> 120/240 VAC-200A-resi service.
> 
> Yep local - @##$$%^- For no other reason than- I've had problems and thats what I want'.
> 
> ...




I hate assholes like this. I wish they would open up the damn NEC to table 300.5 and have a look for themselves instead guessing what is right and wrong.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

Big John said:


> What the hell is going on in here? :blink:
> 
> -John



Bad home grown in VT. I guess.

But we all Know they do things different there.

Thanx BBQ- I can't see a damn thing asking for more than 24"....
EVEN under a run way! Been there too.

I hope to expand on my inexperience thru this forum.

Thanx.

So yesterday, as I was drilling holes and installing the vent system for fans and driers- (in direct violation of Mass code/rules).
I mentioned to the builder that I got a speeding ticket for going 45 in a 50 MPH zone. Because the cop felt it should only be a 40 MPH zone.

He bought it and said.. "the cops are &*^% around here, but they can't do that!"

Then I filled him in on the connection to the EI. Now he gets it.

Best analogy I could think of, But it worked.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> OK now that you have had your fun how about posting anything at all to back your view points?


1)The OP did not state 1or 2 fam dwelling

2)Nat Grid , from their site, insists on 30"

3) The most stringent code applies, see art 100 AHJ , informational note

4)Scot's cartoon is in conflict with Nat Grid's site

~CS~


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> 1)
> 4)Scot's cartoon is in conflict with Nat Grid's site
> 
> ~CS~


:no:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> 3) The most stringent code applies, see art 100 AHJ , informational note
> 
> 
> ~CS~


Is a poco requirement a code? I say no.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I'd seriously like to know why Nat Grid claims 30", and you've posted 18" Scott

in fact, i've worked with numerous poco's in 3 states over 30 ys, and have never seen or heard of an 18" service lateral being allowed

but that validation is yours to present, otherwise it's a bogus cartoon

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> Is a poco requirement a code? I say no.


'

disengenous symantics.....

~CS~


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Not sure what else to say. I feel like I'm battling an uninformed inspector. :laughing:


----------



## Mulder (Sep 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> 1)The OP did not state 1or 2 fam dwelling
> 
> 2)Nat Grid , from their site, insists on 30"
> 
> ...




The very first line in the OP says "resi service".


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> 3) The most stringent code applies, see art 100 AHJ , informational note


Steve, there is NOTHING in the NEC that can apply to areas on the utility side of the service point unless the utility specifies it so as Scotts drawing indicates.

In your wild interpretation the overhead service drop would have to be sized to the NEC tables and we know that is not the case.


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> 1)The OP did not state 1or 2 fam dwelling
> 
> 2)Nat Grid , from their site, insists on 30"
> 
> ...



You are correct, I did not state single or 2 family.
But after a while could you not deduce that this was the case? 

The rest have.
My Bad.

I am also still waiting for the reference for 48" in schedule 80 PVC.

UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!








*4 feet deep schedule 80 !!!???!!!* 
120/240 VAC-200A-resi service.
 
Yep local - @##$$%^- For no other reason than- I've had problems and thats what I want'.


2- So when I ask they tell me "To NEC."

I'm gonna go 30"?

3 & 4 don't matter. NGrid gave me the answer.

And with all my inexperience with them have never had a problem with them.:whistling2:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> Not sure what else to say. I feel like I'm battling an uninformed inspector. :laughing:


still no link, so off to google we go.....


I'm reading 4.5.5.1 General to UG secondaries states a 3" concrete envelope here>

http://documentsearch.org/read?=htt....com/non_html/shared_construction_greenbk.pdf


seems to validate the shallow depth, if that's what you do in your area

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Steve, there is NOTHING in the NEC that can apply to areas on the utility side of the service point unless the utility specifies it so as Scotts drawing indicates.
> 
> In your wild interpretation the overhead service drop would have to be sized to the NEC tables and we know that is not the case.


 
i don't have to defend something i didn't claim BBQ

~CS~


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> still no link, so off to google we go.....
> 
> 
> I'm reading 4.5.5.1 General to UG secondaries states a 3" concrete envelope here>
> ...



You really are a tool. Read the top of the picture that's highlighted. Do you really think you are important enough for me to draw that???????? 


More importantly, how often do you install an underground residential service with National Grid?


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> i don't have to defend something i didn't claim BBQ
> 
> ~CS~



http://documentsearch.org/read?=htt....com/non_html/shared_construction_greenbk.pdf


Your link- sorry can't post for others. I'm challenged.

For the latest authorized version, please refer to the company’s website at http://www.nationalgridus.com/electricalspecifications. 59
National Grid / Specification for Electrical Installations / April 2010

Your reference:
4.5.5 Underground Secondary Service Connection from the Company’s Underground Supply Lines
Not the topic, Beauty of the code. There are specific areas to cover specific applications.
 
4.5.6 Underground Residential Distribution (URD) Areas
Service within an Underground Residential Distribution Area shall be taken from the Company’s transformer,
or, the Company’s handhole.
The Customer shall furnish, install, own and maintain the underground secondary service conductors
between the Company's underground system supply point (in this instance, the supply point and service
point are the same) and the Customer’s service equipment. The Customer shall install approved
underground secondary service conductors and shall tightly seal conductor ends to prevent entrance
of moisture. (See Figure 4.5.6-1.) The Company may refuse to energize the service if conductor ends
are not moisture sealed. The Customer shall dig to approximately 1 ft. (300 mm) from the Company’s
transformer base or service handhole, and leave a coil of cable of at least 6 ft. (1.8 m). After inspection
agency approval, the underground service conductors shall be backfilled prior to the Company energizing the service.

But from 4.5.6 to 4.5.6.2 -
Only tells me to stay away from their stuff by 1' (one foot).

Like that will happen.

It also must have been a big deal to them that the trench was still WIDE open, Inspected at 4PM Friday and energized at 8:45 AM Saturday!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( For that I am grateful - got an extra to energize 2 20A ckts for the sheet rockers to do their thing today with out a generator!!!!!!!!! ) No seals in the conduit etc.......

Buried yesterday at 4:45 PM While I was illegally installing duct work for drier vents and bath exhaust fans.:whistling2:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> i don't have to defend something i didn't claim BBQ
> 
> ~CS~


Steve, you have claimed that the most stringent depth rules apply to a service lateral. 

That is not the case, either the NEC applies or the utility rules apply

Think of the service point as the boarder between countries. What happens on one of the boarder cannot be controlled by the rules on the other side of the boarder.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

Page 61


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

electricmanscott said:


> Page 61



74 too.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

leland said:


> 74 too.


Hogwash, you're making that up. :laughing:

It's on numerous pages in the book. I just chose the one with a nice "cartoon" as CS calls it, for the literary challenged. :laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> Hogwash,


You watch your language mister.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

electricmanscott said:


> You really are a tool. Read the top of the picture that's highlighted. Do you really think you are important enough for me to draw that????????
> 
> 
> More importantly, how often do you install an underground residential service with National Grid?


i'm reading 3" concrete envelope , having googled off your NG #, ref NG specs

in short, you provided a pix, _no_ specs

you were _asked _for a link, and now it's clear why you did _not _forward one

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> Steve, you have claimed that the most stringent depth rules apply to a service lateral.
> 
> 
> .


no i did _not_ Mr BBQ

nor will i respond to your inserting words in my mouth here

bad cop _again!_

_~CS~_


----------



## leland (Dec 28, 2007)

chicken steve said:


> i'm reading 3" concrete envelope , having googled off your NG #, ref NG specs
> 
> in short, you provided a pix, _no_ specs
> 
> ...



http://www.nationalgridus.com/non_html/shared_constr_esb750.pdf
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/dfs/osfm/cmr/cmr-secured/527012.pdf
www,NFPA.ORG 70.

Still can't find 48" schedule 80.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> i'm reading 3" concrete envelope , having googled off your NG #, ref NG specs
> 
> in short, you provided a pix, _no_ specs
> 
> ...


Ya ok Bagdad Bob :laughing:

You are a hopeless case. BUT>>> the good news is you fit right in here. You are never wrong and even when you CLEARLY are you still deny it and keep spewing nonsense. :thumbup:


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

electricmanscott said:


> It's on numerous pages in the book. I just chose the one with a nice "cartoon" as CS calls it, for the *literary challenged.* :laughing:



Exhibit A your honor......



chicken steve said:


> i'm reading 3" concrete envelope , having googled off your NG #, ref NG specs


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

I have an underground service coming up. Have to line up the concrete mixer. :laughing:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> BBQ said:
> 
> 
> > Steve, you have claimed that the most stringent depth rules apply to a service lateral.
> ...


Oh, see I was confused as it seemed like that was what you where saying here right before you stuffed your foot into your mouth trying to call people hacks that actully knew the code said 18". 

I guess that was some other chicken Steve and not you. :laughing:



chicken steve said:


> because Nat Grid forwards it's own installation guidelines, like most poco's do, with reference to the nec
> 
> what they are looking for, is the more stringent doctrine, thus their own 30" rule, not the fairytale 18" niether Leland or Scot can validate
> 
> ...


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

:lol::lol:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

leland said:


> Still can't find 48" schedule 80.


nor can i leland

my question here is, is the inspector requiring a deeper depth in lieu of concrete....?



~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> nor can i leland
> 
> my question here is, is the inspector requiring a deeper depth in lieu of concrete....?
> 
> ...


18" with PVC no concrete is both NEC compliant and compliant with the local utility. 

It is simply a case of inspector wanting more than required.


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> nor can i leland
> 
> my question here is, is the inspector requiring a deeper depth in lieu of concrete....?
> 
> ...


:wacko:

You're a nut, I'll give you that. A stubborn, pompous, smug nut. :laughing: It's always fun to be right but when you prove a guy with your attitude wrong it's just feels so good. :thumbup:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

and your info is either incomplete, not concise, or heresay

~CS~


----------



## electricmanscott (Feb 11, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> and your info is either incomplete, not concise, or heresay
> 
> ~CS~


Much like every one of your posts. :thumbup:


I'll ask again. How many underground residential services have you done where Ngrid is the utility?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> and your info is either incomplete, not concise, or heresay
> 
> ~CS~


That is entirely untrue and really confirms all Scott has said. :laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

BBQ said:


> That is entirely untrue and really confirms all Scott has said. :laughing:


 
we've a nat grid source that says 30"

we've a nat grid source that says 18" & concrete

we've an inspector uppin the ante' to 48"

we've pictures providing partial info

i think we can say this thread is not getting full disclosure 

~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> we've a nat grid source that says 30"
> 
> we've a nat grid source that says 18" & concrete
> 
> ...


The only thing we are not getting is you sucking it up and admitting you were mistaken.

You also should apologize to all those you called hacks for saying 18" was NEC compliant when it clearly is.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

18" is nec compliant BBQ, the specific _'resi'_ situation was not in the OP

but that is _not_ the problem here

that the utility is asking for various depths as well as the inspector reeks of _'more to the story'_

adding to this is a builder who is doing electrical installs, never works out in my experience(s) 

as such, the onus of disengenousity falls on the shoulders of those who have _not_ forwarded full disclosure, instead wishing for rant justification

~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> 18" is nec compliant BBQ, the specific _'resi'_ situation was not in the OP


Well we all understood it except for you, now you also know.



> but that is _not_ the problem here
> 
> that the utility is asking for various depths [/U][/I]


No, as has been posted the utility is asking for 18" no concrete cover.



> as well as the inspector reeks of _'more to the story'_


_

The more is an inspector asking for more than required,




adding to this is a builder who is doing electrical installs, never works out in my experience(s)

Click to expand...

Wow, talk about trying hard to make this seem complicated ....:laughing:




as such, the onus of disengenousity falls on the shoulders of those who have not forwarded full disclosure, instead wishing for rant justification

~CS~

Click to expand...

Hmm.

You were told the NEC requirements a number of times and you called us hacks. I asked you to 'pick up a damn code book' aprently you could not be bothered so I have since posted and circled the NEC table showing 18" was OK and you could not even bother to acknowledge you were mistaken.

We have the current POCO local requirements posted. You called them 'cartoons.'

You have at least 3 guys with direct experience with the requirements in the OPs area that claim 18" is OK but you, sitting a few hundred miles away with no experience in the area of the OP knows better.

Yeah ........ that makes sense. :laughing:_


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

my experience tells me inspectors usually don't insist on doubling a code depth unless they've some prior problems 

my experience also tells me discussing it all with sorts on the 'net who will never own up to it is a usless venture 

good day sir

~CS~


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

chicken steve said:


> my experience tells me inspectors usually don't insist on doubling a code depth unless they've some prior problems
> 
> my experience also tells me discussing it all with sorts on the 'net who will never own up to it is a usless venture
> 
> ...


So you can't even admit you were wrong for calling folks that actually knew the code hacks?

You are quite the big man.


----------



## idontknow (Jul 18, 2009)

leland said:


> 120/240 VAC-200A-resi service.


The very first sentence said resi service. I guess I was right in assuming that meant residential service.

My oh my have I missed this place. I haven't missed much in terms of quality but at least it's made up with an overflow of quantity.


----------



## D-Bo (Apr 15, 2012)

i learned everything about resi service laterals by perusing this thread over a couple minutes and you guys have been trying to beat it into this guys head for DAYS!!!! i dont think he's gonna get it


----------

