Violation ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

celtic

Senior Member
Location
NJ
What say you:
Weatherhead1.jpg


Weatherhead1b.jpg


Violation or not?
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
violation 230.54(C)
dryer vent would cause some concern in regard to ambient. My guess would be violation 310.15B/16
 

CopperTone

Senior Member
Location
MetroWest, MA
Yes. POA is above weatherhead. 230.54(C)
the exception under 230.54 (C) may make it ok - although I can't see how it would have been impractical to locate the service head above the point of attachment unless it now violated the 3ft rule from the next window above.

The reality probably is that the service was there before the drop from the street was installed so it really was the power company that created the violation. If I was changing the service I would get as close to practical without violating any other codes.

not a violation of 230.9(A) see the Exception below it
 

480sparky

Senior Member
Location
Iowegia
the exception under 230.54 (C) may make it ok - although I can't see how it would have been impractical to locate the service head above the point of attachment unless it now violated the 3ft rule from the next window above.

The reality probably is that the service was there before the drop from the street was installed so it really was the power company that created the violation. If I was changing the service I would get as close to practical without violating any other codes.

not a violation of 230.9(A) see the Exception below it

Another 24" or so of riser would have prevented the violation entirely.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
If poco puts in the POA after I am done, as they do here then I don't see 230.54(C) coming into play.

Forget about the dryer vent.
 

Volta

Senior Member
Location
Columbus, Ohio
When?

When?

How old is it? The POA clause started in '68. Previously, only the conductor connections were referenced. 1965:230-51.
Can't see if the splices are over or under the head.

The attachment has been required to be "approved" longer though. 1940:2326. Earlier still almost required approval.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top