|
|
|
1 members (Scott35),
565
guests, and
35
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
OP
Member
|
Well Lee County passed it and FPL is going to juice them up.
It was a heluva pull. It turned out they had #2 copper SER and 110' of 1 1/4" pipe with two 90s over and up to the meter base. They cheated and pulled the straight part in, slid the 90s on and then the riser. Not legal but certainly practical.
It is the way the FPL contractor does it so I didn't feel too bad about it.
BTW a golf cart makes a great "tugger". We had to tie the raceway to a tree to keep it from being tugged out of the ground tho. One thing they did come up with was to shoot a little squirt of soap in each section of RNC while they were gluing it together.
They only hit one water line! On a golf course that is amazing to me.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,507
Member
|
Greg- I'm surprised you'd be a party to this type of installation. We both know that it is not code compliant. SER is not Listed for use underground or in conduit. I would never have approved this type of installation. On the other hand it probably will work just fine and they will probably never have to replace it in our lifetime. If they do they will have to replace the conduit also. Okay I vented. 
George Little
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
OP
Member
|
I have tossed this around various groups for a month and the answers were all over the map. The THWN marked conductors are certainly OK in pipe underground so the safety issue seemed minimal to non-existant. The licensed EC made the decision to use it and the AHJ said it was OK so I figured it was NOMB.
Bear in mind I also had no real authority to say they couldn't. I was just an observer.
In fact I just took my required my CEU law course and I would face a $1500 fine for impersonating the AHJ if I did say something.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. ;-)
They did strip the last 10' that goes through the turns so I wouldn't bet you couldn't pull that out if that was your concern. I can't imagine why they would want to and if they did replace it they could go back with #6 if they wanted to since this is only supposed to be a 60a service and they are only using about 5 of it. (two 15a circuits)
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,507
Member
|
Okay Greg- With that explanation I guess it makes sense. My thinking was aside from the SER not being listed for use in conduit, the possibility of damaging the conductors was there. Now if they removed the outer jacket the conductors would possibly flex more and not end up being damaged. I would be the last person to say I never approved a job that was less then perfect because sometimes a contractor can accomplish what I call "equivalency" and not meet the code to the letter of the law and I would approve the installation.
George Little
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
OP
Member
|
bump This one ... and George didn't like it last year either 
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Posts: 404
Joined: March 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
