OH Service conductor clearance

Status
Not open for further replies.

inspector 102

Senior Member
Location
Northern Indiana
An overhead service has been installed on an existing house. The original service is UG but due to the distance between buildings, the new service would cost too much to install UG again. The new service runs up the building providing all the horizontal clearance required by 230.9 (B) which is 3 feet from the opening. The problemis that when the utility connect to the point of connection, they will pass under the window opening area by approximately 3 feet vertical with a distance away from the opening of approximately 2 feet at the closest point. Since this opening is not intended to pass thing through it, is this an acceptable installation. Is there something about fire ladders that needs to be considered?
 

Buck Parrish

Senior Member
Location
NC & IN
Iwire,
Your right about that. But your point of attachment has to be done in such away that the utilities won't run in front of a window.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
inspector 102 said:
I agree that the utility does not need to follow the NEC, but the fact that the contractor placed the service were he did, does that create a violation?

I see your point.

That said, as far as am concerned that overhead span is all but invisible to the NEC. I do understand you are trying to do the right thing for safety, I am just not sure the NEC has provided you a way here.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
buckofdurham said:
Iwire,
Your right about that. But your point of attachment has to be done in such away that the utilities won't run in front of a window.

I agree that makes sense but I do not see that in the NEC.
 

Buck Parrish

Senior Member
Location
NC & IN
inspector 102 said:
I agree that the utility does not need to follow the NEC, but the fact that the contractor placed the service were he did, does that create a violation?


Yes, it would be no different then setting your weather head at a height where the utilities we're not able to reach the nec minimum height for a parking lot etc.
Do you have the nec hand book? If so look at exhibit 230.16. That would be in reguards to the window.
 

Buck Parrish

Senior Member
Location
NC & IN
iwire said:
I agree that makes sense but I do not see that in the NEC.


I don't either.


I live where the hurricane hit a while back.
You should have seen some of the mask back then. The out of state power companies would do any thing to get the power on quickly. In some cases rope would be holding the overhead span to the house then the wires would be put in to the meter no mask at all. Thats just one example of many.
We are still correcting some of this stuff.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
buckofdurham said:
Yes, it would be no different then setting your weather head at a height where the utilities we're not able to reach the nec minimum height for a parking lot etc.

Which is not a violation IMO either.

That overhead conductor is under the NESC not the NEC, 90.2(B)(5)(a) could not be clearer.

If the height rules in the NEC apply to that overhead cable so do the ampacity rules and the listing rules etc. It can't be just the rules we want, it has to be all or nothing.

Just think about it for a bit before deciding.

The NEC says what it says, not always what we expect it or want it to say. :smile:
 

Buck Parrish

Senior Member
Location
NC & IN
iwire said:
Which is not a violation IMO either.

That overhead conductor is under the NESC not the NEC, 90.2(B)(5)(a) could not be clearer.

If the height rules in the NEC apply to that overhead cable so do the ampacity rules and the listing rules etc. It can't be just the rules we want, it has to be all or nothing.

Just think about it for a bit before deciding.

The NEC says what it says, not always what we expect it or want it to say. :smile:


Your right the city inspector will make us install the weather head at a hieght so the utilities can be code compliant in height. Yet the poco will run #2AL to the same 200 amp service.
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
inspector 102 said:
I agree that the utility does not need to follow the NEC, but the fact that the contractor placed the service were he did, does that create a violation?

maybe not.
Bob is right (as usual).
If POCO so desired they could set another pole and avoid the problem.:smile:

Locally, POCO would proably tell the EC to rearrange service/POA to eleiminate THEIR problem or they would nor connect. Or, they might just install and drive off, but, bottom line, as Bob states, not a NEC call.
 

charlie

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis
I have been gone and missed this conversation.
icon9.gif
However, Bob and Gus have the situation well in hand and are correct. We do indeed follow the NESC and most of those type of rules are similar to the NEC. Without looking at the NESC, I can't tell you what the provisions are but look carefully at Gus' last reply. If you want power, you may have to rearrange the point of contact to get it. ;)

By the way, a #2 triplex works great for a 200 ampere service due to how lightly most of them are loaded and the fact it is in open air. :)
 

inspector 102

Senior Member
Location
Northern Indiana
Thank you for all the responces. I am trying to avoid the situation where I am required to approve it based on the installation, then the utility comes back and says they are refusing it because of the install. This is an existing house that provides very little space to run the OH drop, and definitely no place to set a pole.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top