Are overhead lines permitted above swimming pools?

Status
Not open for further replies.

bclumen

Member
Location
Elkridge, MD
I'm in a class with a bunch of swimming pool professionals being taught by Mike Holt that it is OK to have OH wiring above a pool as long as it's 22.5' above the water level. What about Table 680.8 (A) row C. He dismissed it's importance and sees nothing wrong with an OH line over a pool. I would like to see how others interpret 680.8
 

Cincycaddy

Member
Location
Cincinnati, OH
"Horizontal limit of clearance measured from inside wall of pool" ? I read this as defining the edge of the bubble that Rows A and B should be applied. It doesn't read that OH line over pool aren't permitted.
 

bclumen

Member
Location
Elkridge, MD
I may be getting an education here. I'm confused and hope to hear from others. It seems to me that this Horizontal Limit is the minimum horizontal distance a line can be from the Structures listed in rows A and B
 

david luchini

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Connecticut
Occupation
Engineer
I may be getting an education here. I'm confused and hope to hear from others. It seems to me that this Horizontal Limit is the minimum horizontal distance a line can be from the Structures listed in rows A and B

I agree with Cincy...

The horizontal limit is the limit that the Clearance Parameters in Rows A and B must extend beyond the inside wall of the pool.

So if you had an overhead line 22.5 ft above a 20' wide pool, the overhead line must remain at 22.5 ft above the pool deck for at least 10' on either side of the pool. Once that horizontal limit is reached, the overhead line can be dropped below 22.5 ft.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
At 22.5' above the water I am not sure what your concern would be. Not likely the conductors will fall down into the pool while you are swimming in it. If there is a storm that takes down the wire then you should not be in the pool.

I believe the height is to insure that someone doesn't hit the wires with a long pole etc. Not sure how they came up with that height but that is what the panel came up with.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
I can see the inspection department not allowing a pool in the location of utility wires that don't meet the required distances. Either the utility moves the wires or they don't get a permit to build it. My guess is the permit is issued and pool built then everyone goes uh oh.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
The inspectors enforce 230.24 and 230.26 here and our service drops are owned by the POCO.

Then they are going beyond their authority

90.2 Scope.

(B) Not Covered.
This Code does not cover the following:

(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric
utility where such installations

a. Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated
metering, or
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
The inspectors enforce 230.24 and 230.26 here and our service drops are owned by the POCO.
Which edition of NEC are you under? 2011 made attempts to clarify just what is covered by NEC and what isn't by defining things like service point, service conductors - underground, service conductors - overhead ... and a few other terms, service drop and service lateral typically are on the supply side of the service point and are under exclusive control of the utility and basically are only named by NEC but not covered by NEC.

I can see an AHJ making you cover overhead clearance requirements for a POCO owned drop though if you are responsible for placement of the attachment point, however if you place the attachment point high enough to get correct clearance and they leave too much sag in the line how is it your fault?
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I don't know much of what is in the NESC, but I can recall seeing clearances for overhead lines over a pool (been a long time ago) that were from the NESC.

I agree building a pool under/near an existing overhead line (regardless of who owns or controls the line) should be addressed at the permit/plans stage of the game. Building a pool then discovering it is too close to the lines is a failure of this pre-construction process. If the line is something other then the service drop to the property the pool is on or a privately owned line on the property - there is probably encroachment of the utility company's right of way/easement and this should also be addressed at pre-construction stages.
 

Fulthrotl

~Autocorrect is My Worst Enema.~
22.5' is too high.You need something to hang the towels and bathing suits on to dry.

around here, older stuff was pretty lax. my pool in my backyard has my overhead service crossing it at about
11' above water surface. house was built in 1962, pool put in summer of 1965.

suffice it to say that the only pool skimmers and poles at my house are fiberglass. eventually, there will be a
service relocation to resolve this, but it hasn't happened yet.

in the interim, pay attention to what you are doing. duh.
 

bclumen

Member
Location
Elkridge, MD
All, thank you for your input. As always, the expertise available here is bar none! I am absolutely wrong in my interpretation of 680.8 and the meaning of their "Horizontal Limit". Going back to 1996 NEC 680-8, I see where my misinterpretation stemmed from. I was 24 in '96 and clearly not patient enough to read the exceptions. I verified neither of the utility providers in our region permit pools, diving platforms and observation stands from being placed beneath their overhead lines and I would never install an overhead span over a pool. I'm surprised the NEC permits this.
 

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
Which edition of NEC are you under? 2011 made attempts to clarify just what is covered by NEC and what isn't by defining things like service point, service conductors - underground, service conductors - overhead ... and a few other terms, service drop and service lateral typically are on the supply side of the service point and are under exclusive control of the utility and basically are only named by NEC but not covered by NEC.

I can see an AHJ making you cover overhead clearance requirements for a POCO owned drop though if you are responsible for placement of the attachment point, however if you place the attachment point high enough to get correct clearance and they leave too much sag in the line how is it your fault?

2011 but they have been enforcing drop clearances for as long as I can remember. We are responsible the placement of the weather head, but the POCOs use their own attachment points. The few feet of conductor sticking out of the weather head are customer owned. From there to the pig is POCO owned. The triplex is POCO owned and the inspectors enforce 230.24 (A) on POCO owned triplex all the time. We have had the inspection dept. make the POCO move their drop from an alley, because the drop was low and went over a garage, to a center tap on the street side before they would give a green sticker to us for a service upgrade.

It may be a state thing. I never argued it as it wasn't my place and I got paid by the hour.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
2011 but they have been enforcing drop clearances for as long as I can remember. We are responsible the placement of the weather head, but the POCOs use their own attachment points. The few feet of conductor sticking out of the weather head are customer owned. From there to the pig is POCO owned. The triplex is POCO owned and the inspectors enforce 230.24 (A) on POCO owned triplex all the time. We have had the inspection dept. make the POCO move their drop from an alley, because the drop was low and went over a garage, to a center tap on the street side before they would give a green sticker to us for a service upgrade.

It may be a state thing. I never argued it as it wasn't my place and I got paid by the hour.
I have no problem with them asking the POCO to move the drop, but would have a problem if they fail my inspection over something I had no control over. Like I said before if I am responsible for mounting the attachment point, I don't have a problem with failing the height of attachment point if it doesn't allow for proper clearances but do have a problem if the POCO leaves excess sag in the conductor that causes a clearance violation and they pin that on me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top