I am in the midst of a complete, to-the-frame remodel of a house. As part of this, I have to design the new kitchen. This made me wonder: What, exactly, are the loads we expect to have in a kitchen? How much power do they really draw?

Now, we can't look at nameplates, because we don't have access to them. Nor can we be 'sure' about which everyday appliance will be set where on the counter.

Code requires at least two "small appliance branch circuits" of 20-amp capacity to serve the kitchen and dining areas. Code is silent as to how those circuits will be distributed.

One common approach - to 'split' receptacles and have each half served by a different circuit - has gone by the wayside. Not only are we now required to have the two circuits turn off together, there's no such thing as a 2-pole AFCI/GFCI breaker. Try bringing two separate feeds into a box, and confusion reigns.

My own planned kitchen will have two counters, flanking an aisle. I COULD just run one circuit to each counter ... but does that make good design sense? What about the microwave?

Well, I needed data. What, I wondered, do my existing counter-top appliances really draw?

Let me introduce the Kill-A-Watt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_A_Watt This tool lets you monitor an appliance as it operates; simply plug the appliance into the Kill-A-Watt, and the meter into the receptacle.

I used this tool to get my readings as I used the appliances normally.

Here's a table of the appliances tested, and the readings:
Microwave: 15A

Toaster-oven: 10A
Toaster:6

Kettle: 12A
Mr. Coffee: 5A

Foreman grill: 6A
Griddle: 11A
Skillet: 12A

Deep Fryer: 10A
Rice cooker: 2A

Compact Fridge: 1A

There it is. Let the discussion begin!

I have never split fed a duplex receptacle. I would have adjacent receptacles on opposite circuits.

1 ckt- ref
1 ckt- DW
1 ckt- pig
1 ckt- Radar Range
2 ckts- counter recept including dining room recpt

Never had any problems.

Reno:
My kitchen from 2011 redo:

DW on 20 amp dedicated
Micro on 20 amp dedicated
Three (3) 20 amp S/A counter circuits
One 20 amp ref circuit.
One 20 amp for dining area
One 15 amp lighting circuit; under cab. LEDs; sink pendant (60 watt+/-); 2x2 cloud fluorescent

My wifes collection of small appliances:
Kurieg Coffee
Cusinart Coffee Brewer
Toaster oven.
Blender
Toaster (4 slicer)
Griddle
Crock pots
Counter TV & FiOSbox
Cordless phone base.
etc.

I don't want to hear "the breaker tripped'!!

The design choices IMHO are 'unique' to each job, and in most cases it revolves around $$$$$. Being that the above is my kitchen, that's what I decided to do.

Most of the McMansions I inspect have more than NEC minimum circuitry in the kitchens (S/A circuits). Then you add the 'toys', and 12or more kitchen circuits are not unusual.

Again, please note that I have no issues with the layout shortcircuit listed; it's compliant.

My kitchen is "illegal"
I added two 20a small appliance circuits to the one that was there but the fridge is still on with the bathroom light and fan and there is a circuit at the end of the peninsula on a general lighting circuit (but that is arguably in the living room)
The hood is on the circuit with the ceiling light and the over sink light along with the motion lights.
We have a microwave, toaster oven, coffee maker, can opener and a toaster.
I have plenty of receptacles on those circuits.

If you are concerned then pull more than two circuits. Configure them so no adjacent receptacle (pigtailed GFI) is on the same circuit. EX> Left to right CKT 1, CKT 3, CKT 5, CKT 7 or some such thing. Since its a custom just overkill in the kitchen/dining area. This way, NO MATTER WHAT appliances you get there will be tons of watts (2400 per 120V 20A CKT).

huawannabee:
The 'design' is not related to the 'code' minimum number of SA circuits within a kitchen.

Designers, homeowners, and electrical contractors are 'free' to install more than the 'code' minimum.

A twist on this is the required 120/20 amp circuit for the bathroom receptacles. All bath recepts can be on that one circuit, providing they are the only thing on that circuit. IMHO, having a GFCI recept in a first floor powder room, and feeding all the other bath recept's is a very poor 'design' but it is 'code.

Let's not be silly- or flippant!

"Good design" is just that - a design that lets the customer "forget" about the electrical system, provides for safety, and isn't wasteful.

I've said it before: A "good" design meets code, while a "code minimum" design is almost always poor design- and often doesn't meet code!

I once built a convenience store. Confronted with a grossly inadequate - but legal and city approved- design, I didn't just 'do it.' No, I saw to it that the end customer was happy. Result? A very enthusiastic customer.

I started this thread to provide some actual figures for modern appliances. One cannot design without having the relevant information.

My data showed two big changes in appliances over the years:

First, that the refrigerator doesn't draw nearly as much power as it once did. Efficiencies have improved to the point that a dedicated 20-amp circuit is wasteful to the point that it might even be considered a code violation.

Also, the microwave drew a full circuit's worth of power whenever it ran. Enough so that it does warrant it's own circuit- no matter what the code says.

Reno:

"I've said it before: A "good" design meets code, while a "code minimum" design is almost always poor design- and often doesn't meet code!"

My friend, could you please explain how a 'code minimum' design could possibly not meet code.

You also mention.....

"....that a dedicated 20-amp circuit is wasteful to the point that it might even be considered a code violation."

Yes, the current generation of refrigerators are efficient, but I cannot grasp how a dedicated 120/20 circuit could be considered a 'code violation'?

Let the debate begin......
Let the forum awaken.......

Not to be pedantic but the "dedicated" circuit for a fridge is 15a, otherwise it can be on a SA circuit.
That is also true of the microwave (SA circuit) if it is not permanently mounted.
I doubt many actually pull much more than a toaster anyway.

The 2 SA circuits in my kitchen that I pulled make me legal but there are also 3 15a circuits that were existing and have other outlets. In 1963 I doubt they had a code issue with that.
I am still not sure I have them all mapped but I know one is shared with the bathroom light on the opposite wall. It was also feeding the counter but I fixed that very early in my residence here because hair dryers were taking out the fridge. Now it is just the vanity light, fridge and a battery emergency light charger in the hall.

"I doubt many actually pull much more than a toaster anyway."

THAT's why I measured actual appliances.

1000W micro: Just over 15 amps (I rounded down).

2-slice toaster: 6 amps

A 20-amp circuit with only one receptacle needs a 20-amp pattern device. This is misleading, as a) a duplex receptacle counts as 'more than one,' and because 20-amp receptacles typically have T-shaped slots, that will accept 15-amp plugs.

You can't have good design when you have bad data.

At a certain point, you just need to trust 240.4(D).
If you are not popping breakers, you are doing OK.

I do think that anyone who needs 4.8KW worth of counter top appliances to cook dinner needs to learn how to use the stove.

Ha! Just think for a moment, and I bet you can come up with a few common kitchen appliance I missed- like, say, the bread machine and the waffle maker!

A common "combo" might be using the Foreman grill on a burger while the rice cooker works on the red beans & rice. Now, there's a nice, quick meal for the single guy. Will you pop the breaker? Well, look at the table ....

At the other extreme, there's always the house full of teens rushing around as they get ready for school. I bet someone has seen a hair dryer laying on the kitchen counter ...

Nor can I forget my favorite- the SRO fleabag "residence hotel' where they think that a compact fridge with a micro sitting atop it, next to the bed ... and the bathroom sink nearby, make the room a "kitchenette." Hmm.... does that mean the bath circuit is also an SABC?

Big stoves are nice, but it seems the folk who want the stoves also want enough counter space you could land a fighter jet on the kitchen island. With all that space to fill ... well, I suppose that explains the demand for an endless variety of appliances.

Speaking of which ... just in from a road trip, and the hotel had a new gizmo in the 'breakfast bar.' They had an AUTOMATED pancake maker. Push button, wait a bit, and two flapjacks drop out the side. http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/chefstack-automatic-pancake-machine-for-all-your-pancake-part/

Reno:

Could/would you please explain.......

"I've said it before: A "good" design meets code, while a "code minimum" design is almost always poor design- and often doesn't meet code!"

My friend, could you please explain how a 'code minimum' design could possibly not meet code.

You also mention.....

"....that a dedicated 20-amp circuit is wasteful to the point that it might even be considered a code violation."

Yes, the current generation of refrigerators are efficient, but I cannot grasp how a dedicated 120/20 circuit could be considered a 'code violation'?

If the fridge is on a 20, it can have other kitchen loads on it. The only dedicated fridge circuit is the 15a in 210.52(B)(1) ex2. Otherwise it can be on one of the SA circuits.
As I said earlier, mine is still on the bathroom vanity light circuit and I never saw a reason to change it.

When I lived in the States for five years (2000-5), I had with me a number of European/South African tools and appliances which required a 240V supply. My challenge was to seek out compliant ways to service this equipment, the most popular being our British kettle – it’s that tea thing we have!

By US standards it was a beast, rated at 3kW it roared to aqueous phase transition in a matter of a few minutes. Certainly surprised my US boss when we made him a pot of tea.

I had quite a debate here at that time as to the ins and outs of legitimate supply, but cutting a long story short, 240V circuits for dedicated equipment were in code, and didn’t then require a AFCI/GFCI breaker either. You get much more bang for your buck at 240V!

Hutch, with the notable exception of Sweden (and much later, Poland) Europe has been a massive copper importer.

The metal savings (field wiring) at the higher voltage were noted many generations ago.

The weird thing is the decision to go to 50 Hertz. This, along with the voltage norm, was deliberately selected to keep American (NEMA standard) products out of European markets -- all the way back in the 19th Century.

This push is still on -- with Paris -- as ever -- leading the way.

[The primary reason for the green-yellow earthing conductor in all European devices is to thwart American solid green grounding conductor products. All other wire color norms were likewise selected to be not-American standard.]

The kicker with 50 Hertz power is that all transformers and motors have to be built larger to handle the same amount of power. It does save on radiated energy. (power company distribution losses that don't show up on retail power bills)

So 50 Hertz made more economic sense for America (very large) whereas 60 Hertz made more economic sense for Europe. (almost tiny by comparison) Such is mercantile politics... and the accidents of history.

Greg:
My question is regarding what Reno stated, and is not directed at a refrig in particular.

I can't get a grip on what he may be referring to.

Tesla,

As I discussed many years ago, the decision for the US to standardise on 120V was the penalty for being first in the game and the numbers were such that to adopt a higher domestic voltage was thwarted by the quantity of those already supplied. A tension of 240V was always part of the supply equation even in the US – grounded centre tapped – and this was replicated in the limited 120-0-120V DC municipal supplies in the UK that were available until the 1940’s.

In Europe the advantages of a higher supply voltage were able to be rolled out to their customer base - because it was smaller at the time. In the UK a 240V line to ground, 3-phase, was standardized with the delivery of AC power. In continental Europe, 3-phase 127V line to ground systems were the initially norm (230V phase to phase).

The colours are a hang-over of various national systems. In the UK pre 1970’s the domestic wiring colours were red (phase), black (neutral {grounded in US}), and solid green (earth{grounding in US}). Other European countries had other systems – in the German-speaking world, red was earth (Grounded)!! Imagine that for cross-border co-operation!

The colours were changed to the present because a significant proportion of the male population is red-green colour blind and this had a Darwinian effect on those UK electricians and their customers. Brown, blue and yellow/green wiring can be distinguished by most members of the population – it has absolutely nothing to do with protectionism.

All UK railroad signalling equipment is 110V – a hangover from when Westinghouse (USA) first supplied most of the world’s railway electronic signalling equipment. My spare US domestic stuff now sits with my local tourist railway where I volunteer my services at a weekend.

As for the frequency – I have heard it said that Tesla (your namesake) adopted 60Hz by experiment in the local city supply environment. Europe was always (post-Napoleon) driven by metrication and 50Hz, thus comprised 100 phase peaks per second – i.e. nicely metric.

But meanwhile, back to kitchen stuff …

John...

I rather suspect that Reno is crossing over the LEED and other eco centric 'codes' that have 'electrical Puritanism' as their goal.

'Electrical Puritanism' is why California's PUC has cranked up retail electrical power rates to staggering levels: $0.45/ hW-Hr for marginal energy consumption -- which is plainly a sumptuary tax -- for the sin of using more juice than the 'sustainability crowd' deems appropriate.

Distasteful as it is: eco-politics has entered our trade.

Step by step the NEC is being used -- along with the PUC power schedule -- along with Title 24 (California building code law) -- to 'address' ecological concerns.

One example out of many: the NEC requirement to bring neutrals down into all switch boxes -- a provision that can't possibly have a 'safety angle' -- but is demanded by the smart switch (Internet of things) crowd.

This recent provision is almost exclusive to residential builds. It's not required for pipe & wire jobs.

(Due to economics, it's been my practice to bring down neutrals to commercial switches (in MC) just about forever. The 'economics' being the low level of training acquired by my (green and under-paid) apprentices. The complicated (a,b) switching schemes demanded by Title 24 make 'banding neutrals' just too much trouble. (Prone to circuit screw-ups and re-work.)

Title 24 provisions may start in California -- but they don't stay there. With a modicum of delay, the Feds end up mandating California standards whenever they make sense/ the products are available in quantity.

As for politics: the guys actually driving this are fellows like "Meathead" -- yes, the original "All in the Family Meathead: Rob Reiner, Jr. He's now a political activist -- and hugely involved in thwarting tobacco and... electric power consumption. He and his buddies sit on more than a few Southern California (highly politicized) environmental boards.

In sum: Hollywood elites are actually making national energy policy. When this deflects off into campaigns against the Keystone pipeline -- we're just bystanders.

I fully expect the NEC to become fused to the eco movement -- and to see BAS and other smart regimes extended down to residential construction.

We will no longer be held to JUST the NEC. A stack of additional codes will impact our craft.

And this is not just an American 'thing.' The Green movement (of Germany) is now huge in energy policy/ electrical policy across all of Europe. [There is irony here, the founder of the German Greens was raised and educated in Minneapolis, Minnesota.(!)]

Since this trend gives every indication of being irreversible -- and largely bi-partisan -- our only practical gambit is to ride this wave of regulations.

Which means:

1) Get up to speed as to what's coming down the pike. For most of you that means keeping an eye on California's Title 24 regulations. They WILL be extended to your town -- sooner or later.

2) Get up to speed on all of the new super efficient equipment and lighting. There can be no doubt that practically everything currenly installed will have to be swapped out/ upgraded BEFORE the end of its design life.

This reality has already totally taken over the HVAC field. Those boys are busier than jackrabbits swapping out old for new everywhere you turn.

3) Which means that you need to re-approach every client with upgrade proposals L O N G before you think their lighting is due. Just on the economics -- like PC computers -- the old needs replacement long before it breaks.

After all, that's the entire point about inflicting $ 0.45/ kW-Hr marginal rates.

In most areas, all site lighting is overdue for LED upgrade.

4) LED tech also means LOW VOLTAGE field wiring... in many cases. Consequently, one can install (retrofit) LED trim lighting in spots not previously considered: all perimeter eaves -- ESPECIALLY along the walkways from the driveway to the front porch.

&&&&&&

In sum: "code" is now a term that is not confined to the NEC -- even for electricians.

Scott 35 has previously listed some of the codes that are active for California eletrical contractors. They do go on.

Hutch...

European protectionism got started across their own borders -- long before America came to be.

It was absolutely no accident that the various nations kept popping up with different wire color schemes... which extended from field wiring on into their equipment internals.

The bit about the European grounding conductor banding is of public record. Paris made absolutely NO BONES ABOUT IT.

At the time of its adoption -- not one single European power had that green-yellow banding. Most were using solid green.

The last time I looked Paris had gotten the Common Market to adopt a flaminingly anti-NEMA standard: namely that if a given product was built to a NEMA standard then it was prohibited as an import!

They argued that the vast scale of American electrical manufactures meant that such a total exclusion was the ONLY way to preserve any market position for any European manufacturer. Yes, it passed -- and has been adopted.

The result is that American electrical exports to Europe have to be built on entirely separate assembly lines -- when they are attempted. (Robotics are now making themselves a real threat on this front -- as they can switch from NEMA to DIN standards at the flip of a digital switch.)

To compound the irony: Square D is wholly owned by a French firm (Group Schneider) -- and is as big as they come. Then you have Siemens... Electrolux...

Electrical products are a major trade item for the Europeans -- and are inseparable from politics for them -- and always have been. Many of their manufacturers were at one time or another state owned. (!)

You'd might be interested in the GE to CitiCorp (First National City Bank back then) to AEG deals that were sown up in the late twenties and early thirties. These provided cross-licensing and equity positions -- of epic scope. The Americans provided big bucks, patents and acquired a massive minority stake in AEG.

It will then not surprise you to find out that Westinghouse and Siemens stood in the opposite corner!

Westinghouse and GE raced around the planet competing with each other. In an accident of history, Westinghouse ended up with a monster position in China -- well before WWII.

It was this position that caused Siemens to buy out Westinghouse, many decades later.

GE, of course, went Japanese -- and is tied into Hitachi -- big time.

With firms of such scale, mercantile politics is never off the table.

"I cannot grasp how a dedicated 120/20 circuit could be considered a 'code violation'? "

A 20-a circuit is a code violation when the appliance it is designed for draws less than 16 amps. Add the required additional overcurrent protection, and it's no longer a '20-a' circuit.

"please explain how a 'code minimum' design could possibly not meet code."

We've had plenty of these situations arise. I've posted plenty of such pictures here at ECN. One of my favorite examples was of an EMT conduit mounted at waist level, where it was smashed and ripped out by passing lift truck traffic.

The code does allow EMT as an 'approved' method, and EMT is often the least of the methods allowed in commercial use (local amendments). Article 110 also states that conductors will be protected from mechanical damage- and the damage clearly proves that the EMT was NOT sufficient protection.

Yet, folks will insist that EMT "meets code." Even at this forum various inspectors have not been able to grasp the idea that the NEC does provide the basis for 'disqualifying' an otherwise approved method. IMO, to assert that the NEC allows for a re-creation of something that has been shown to be inadequate protection shows a complete failure of critical thinking.

"A 20-a circuit is a code violation when the appliance it is designed for draws less than 16 amps. Add the required additional overcurrent protection, and it's no longer a '20-a' circuit."

&&&&

This interpretation reads backwards for me. I've always taken the position that a 20A branch circuit is suitable precisely when the utilization will be 80% and below.

UL listed appliances come with overload appropriate cords.

Small appliances also come with internal overload protection -- either inherent or as a component -- like a Klixon. (Common as dust inside appliances across the land, many flavors.)

Over current protection is to exist back at the panel for said 20A branch circuits.


&&&

My 2 cents on vehicle collision damaged raceways is that there are no raceways that can 'take' vehicle collisions.

Even RMC/ GRC would be crushed by a lift truck.

Fork lifts are the reason bollards were invented, IMHO.

The listing standard requires that the smallest digital clock or night light you can plug in a 5-15 or even a 5-20 will survive a fault on that circuit whether it is 15 or 20 amps.
The cord is required to be 18ga or sized to the load.
There are all sorts of protections built into the code and the listing that make that "less than 16a" load safe.

As for "damage" vs "severe damage", it is really what the inspector thinks is "severe". (EMT vs RMC)
The code does not try to make that call but we have the tool.

I think a big part of the thinking about using 110 vs 220 was simply the way electricity, particularly AC was portrayed when they were selling the first grid, a killer. Thank old Tom Edison for that one.
If 110 was a killer, imagine what he would have said about 220.
By the time Europe was deciding on a standard, most of that was debunked.
That was interesting about the blue/brown thing tho although if they were making the ground/earth a green yellow striped conductor, it sort of makes the red/green color blind thing moot.

Greg, A nice pictorial explanation of the colour-blind problem can be seen here.

It also give you a very good idea what the inside of a UK plug looks like if you haven't seen one before. The power cord always exits downwards making for a neat appearance in a room, especially a kitchen - the appliance can back right up to the plug.

I will note that black/white/green achieves the same colour-blind distinction. Just don't add red or orange to the mix!

I think almost all supply voltages go back to multiples of 50 to 55 V, the typical operating voltage of a carbon arc lamp. Depending on how many lamps were wired in series and how much the designers trusted available isolation materials the supply voltage was chosen. As soon as the move from local generators to larger central power stations started, system voltage became a compromise between voltage drop on the one hand and safety and available isolation materials on the other.

Almost all post-1900 electrification schemes in continental Europe settled for 50 Hz AC with large power stations and 220/380 V 4-wire local distribution. Exceptions were usually related to individual projects with particular needs, e.g. the electrification of the Mariazell railway in 1910, at the same time supplying 25 Hz electricity to adjacent homes and businesses. Here the frequency was chosen because of railway engine design issues (AC motors up to about 25 Hz can be controlled like DC motors using series resistors).

This is just a personal suspicion, but I'm almost convinced that 127/220 V systems were mainly installed to replace 3-wire DC systems without messing with the wiring.

Reno:

"A 20-a circuit is a code violation when the appliance it is designed for draws less than 16 amps. Add the required additional overcurrent protection, and it's no longer a '20-a' circuit"

120/20 on 12AWG dedicated, terminated to a 5-20 single receptacle. Load is a micro, mounted permanently 'over the range' and ducted to the exterior. Cord cap on micro (factory) is a 5-20 male; install to mfg instructions.

If the problem is red and green the yellow stripe should break the tie. On the other hand maybe electrician is one of those trades that is not for the color blind. Guys afraid of heights shouldn't be roofers either.

I was very worried when I started taking my electronics classes.
Resistors and Capacitors have values 'written' using color codes (the infamous Black Brown mnemonic).
Fortunately the color combinations that would have messed me up turned out to be non-standard values that nobody would have made...so I was worried over nothing.

All this palaver about "internal" protections and "listing" requirements flies in the face of Article 430, which goes into motor loads. Similar provisions are found in the other nine "special cases.' The short version? A dedicated circuit is NOT a 'convenience circuit,' so you can't go by convenience circuit rules.

Maybe not the best example of "code minimum" being a code violation, but I think it illustrates how letting the codebook be your design guide (itself an Article 90 violation) can quickly lead you into violation.

As for collision protection ... yup, you got it. Article 110 says conductors SHALL be protected against mechanical damage. Nowhere does it say how you must do this- nor is it said anywhere the exact abuse a raceway is intended to defeat.

Bollards? Re-routing the line? Running the raceway within a run of structural tubing? That's your choice.

Yet I see the attitude often taken that "it's in an approved raceway and that's all I'm required to do." I disagree. Conductors are required to be protected. Existing damage is evidence that the original protection was inadequate. Thus, to return to my point, "code minimum" is, in fact, a violation.

I recently had a variation of this discussion with a shopkeeper. The feed to his street-side sign was in EMT, run through a shallow groove in his parking lot. Was this adequate? After all, no where does the code require the line to be buried at all.

I assert that, since his line has since been ripped out of the groove by traffic, the protection offered by the groove was not enough. I would point to this as proof that, in this instance, the line needs to be buried, etc.

His view is, of course, that the damage to the raceway is not a 'protection' problem, but a 'people' problem.

This recent discussion again underscores my assertion: Code "minimum" design is not only bad design, but is often a code violation. It just might take some time for the proof to show.

Reno:
OK, now I see where you are going with this.

Yes, there are many instances of damaged raceways, be they EMT, Wiremold, PVC, and even RGC.

Site lighting 'repairs' are one I know. PVC (Sch 40) in the area that a string trimmer will kill it; NMFC also.

Wouldn't the argument in case of the EMT in a groove be that if anything is below grade it needs to be at code-specified burial depth? Would be 80 cm around here in case of surfaces used by heavy vehicles, e.g. streets, driveways and car parks. Either run it above groundor bury it properly.

PS: of course red could have been chosen as a phase colour. In fact in most European countries nothing prevents you from pulling a red phase conductor in conduit and in fact both the French and the Swiss regularly do so! The Austrian regs do ban red conductors in cables and cords but I'm not sure if that's even still valid (the same article also bans grey and that's definitely been required rather than banned since the early 2000s).

Actually in most countries the regs. don't cover phase colours at all, only a few colours are not to be used - yellow, green, yellow/green and blue (the latter except in systems where no neutral is present, until recently that used to be in cables or conduit runs where no neutral is present). The only definite reference is in the manufacturing standards for cords and cables.

Plus there are exceptions - cords and cables with more than four conductors have black numbered conductors that may also be used as neutral conductors and there is or was a special German 6-conductor cable with three blues IIRC.

Ranger, our code only specifies a burial depth IF the conduit is buried. We are allowed to run conduit on top of any surface.

When a conduit is exposed, our code does not specifically address what protection, if any, is required for the conduit.

When I first posted pics here of the conduit run in a shallow groove in the parking lot, it was admitted here that the installer had exploited a technicality.

Was it enough, to simply lay the conduit in a groove barely deep enough to lower the conduit below the surface of the parking lot? Well - at least for this case - time has proven that it was NOT enough. It's my opinion that the damage proves that additional protection (such as proper burial) is needed for this job.

As you might guess, the owner disagrees with me. Right now, he has the damaged conduit protected from traffic by concrete blocks; no one can drive there. It's the owners' position that simply patching the damaged section and putting some pavement over it will be sufficient.

Of course, covering the pipe makes it a buried pipe- so a proper depth is needed. The owner and I disagree on this point. I will ask the City to discuss this issue with the owner.

Ah, that fine point had evaded me!
Of course technically the conduit isn't buried in that case... but most people would probably agree it's not a good idea.