Underground run inspection

Reply

  #1  
Old 12-30-06, 07:09 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Las Cruces, NM -Zone 8
Posts: 289
Underground run inspection

I have an out building that needs to have power run to it at a some unknown future date. Can I do the trenching and conduit laying without needing to have that aspect inspected? Would keeping the ends of the trench open or accesible suffice, as far as satisfying the depth requirements?

It'll be crossing an area (about 75 feet) that I want to get re-graded and landscaped before the spring and being able to drop that in for future use would be 'helpful'.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 12-30-06, 07:21 AM
Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central New York State
Posts: 13,973
In general, they want to see the trench before it is filled in. I suggest that you contact the AHJ and discuss this with them. They will hopefully be able to work with you on a plan to proceed.
 
  #3  
Old 12-30-06, 07:41 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Las Cruces, NM -Zone 8
Posts: 289
Being that so much of that aspect of the job would be sight unseen, that was the answer I expected and it makes a world of sense. I just don't want to be in a position of having to finish the whole job of 'energizing' the building in a timely manner (permits or whatnot - not sure how it works with scheduled progress) but would like to knock off that part.

I'll see what the city expects or requires on this type of approach.


It was just a thought...
 
  #4  
Old 12-30-06, 07:42 AM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA.
Posts: 2,113
This is not an uncommon situation.
Get the permit, dig the trench lay your conduit, then have it inspected.
And your good untill the next phase.Just cover the ends so no water gets in.
Install a pull string, so when the time comes this can pull in your rope/snake for the wire pull.

In Ma. After formal request, (written or called in) the inspector has 24 hrs to inspect under ground. not counting weekends and holidays.
 
  #5  
Old 12-31-06, 07:06 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Las Cruces, NM -Zone 8
Posts: 289
So with this type of thing, I can get permits/inpections for each stage (the underground run being one stage) without concern over the "finished product". In other words, I wouldn't be obligated to actually have power at the building or having to complete the future concept because of my initiating the process?
 
  #6  
Old 12-31-06, 07:43 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA.
Posts: 2,113
You get one (1) permit, then call for each phase of inspection.
In your case-- 1st) underground,2nd would be the rough electrical. then the final,Which is just that FINAL, all power and devices in place, nothing left to do.

If the walls and ceilings are not to be finished.. Ie: sheetrocked or otherwise coverd then your final will be the same as the rough. If any part of the job will be conceled then that is when you need a rough inspection.
Hope I am clear.

Most permits are good for 1 year. If you go over, No big deal.Just go back to the building dept,lay down another $25 and your all good.
 
  #7  
Old 12-31-06, 09:07 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Las Cruces, NM -Zone 8
Posts: 289
Actually, your last two sentences said it all, for me. That and the one permit for the entire project.

Another question related to this"project" with some in-depth background:

The structure, (700 sq ft - already up by P.O.) has rough-in wiring and an unfinished interior. I had an electrician go over it with a quick look-see, as far as basic installation code (I had found some oddities that can be easily corrected) just to be sure.

The structure looks to have been originaly setup for feeder cables (currently underground but not tied in on either end) from the remote pool subpanel. It looks like the plan was to have each (4) branch circuit breaker at the pool's subpanel. This was all done by the P.O.

The new plan is to run a feed from the main breaker panel directly to a subpanel at the structure This seems to make more sense to me and the electrician I had out here agreed, when considerating the planned usage for the structure (table saw, compressor, etc.).

The rough-in wiring inside is not armored and I was told by the electrician that the assumption made, in this case, is that the walls would be finished (sheetrocked).

Here's the question - With this configuration am I to assume that the "FINAL" (devices in place, etc.) could only be done after the walls are finished - meaning no energizing the structure until the cable runs are "protected" by sheetrock?
 
  #8  
Old 12-31-06, 10:43 PM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA.
Posts: 2,113
With that said,we must tweak it a little.

The previous owners permit is null. you have some rough done. Schedule the inspector to come take a look. Don't be afraid, They can be your friend.
I'm glad you had a pro scope it out.
Regarding the "pool" sub, If these ckts are not for the pool or related equipment,they are to be treated as normal ckts. Armored cable is not required (unless a local code) for exposed work inside, If exposed to physical damage, then yes. This does not seem to be the case.Don't worry.

If you explain what your goal is, they should only ask that you do the paper work (permit), Depending on the status of the project now, they may sign off on the rough.

The other answer.once the rough is signed, you can energize anything you want. Again, The final is just that, FINAL. You may have other issues but as far as the AHJ (authority having jurisdiction (inspector))is concerned, your done. With out sheetrock etc. Plates must be in place for a final.
 
  #9  
Old 01-01-07, 12:34 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Las Cruces, NM -Zone 8
Posts: 289
Hey - first thanks for engaging in this dialogue with such depth and a Happy New Year!

I would think that the P.O.'s permit would be null & void because of change of ownership(?) but for the time issue alone.

The 40A pool sub is (on the outside house wall) about 50+ feet from the detached structure and my issue with that was the potential load that could be produced affecting operations, if conditions were right. That and the fact that the 50+ feet of feeders to the structure's 4 circuits look to be 12 gauge!.

Those feeders also look like they, at one time, ended up at a since removed j-box (judging by the location & outline in the stucco scratch coat and the screw loops in that end of the feeders). That indicated, to me, that they may have learned or been told it was a problem, since it seemed to be "updated".

The currently mounted (unpopulated) subpanel found on the structure itself, has no feed to it and the 4 interior circuits are roughed into that. I think some of that may have been why they abandoned the project (cost factor?) along with the timing of selling the property. I've done nothing to the structure yet , as far as anything electrical.

As far as the inspector being my friend - I think you're reading my main concern. I have this little vision of him/her saying "Holy crap! This has to all come down!" or something that would equate to large dollar signs. For no reason other than my own "paranoia" of things done by the P.O. . I guess the term would be "can of worms". As long as his involvement in a pre-permit capacity, doesn't obligate me to complete what the P.O. had started and presumedly done himself.

But, after this thread, I do feel a little more comfortable with dealing with the AHJ.
 
  #10  
Old 01-01-07, 09:43 AM
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Boston, MA.
Posts: 2,113
Well, You already had "Sparky" look at it, if he didn't say "HOLLY CRAP", then you should be ok.

Run the new feed from the house. Don't mess with the pool sub, If it is suspect now... once you touch it that could be your "can of worms".

Besides you don't want the commpressor and pool pump comming on together on that 40A panel.
 
  #11  
Old 01-01-07, 12:26 PM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Las Cruces, NM -Zone 8
Posts: 289
Exactly on all counts. The other aspects, as far the feed to the pool S/P and all things related, "Sparky" (I like that) had no problems with and said all was good, as far as install, gauge, etc. He agreed about changing the run to the main panel. I couldn't see it all on that pool box. Too much load, in my eyes.

Thanks - I feel much better about dealing with the powers that be at this point.

Now to save my pennies for all that copper... Man, did that get expensive over the last few years!
 
Reply

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
'