225.25

[jap]

I would say, the service drop needs to be on a separate pole.

:thumbsup:

JAP>

 

[tom baker]

The conduits are considered wet locations and NM-B is not allowed. Kind of a DIY job, the installer didn't want to buy spools of THHW...

 

[david]

The conduits are considered wet locations and NM-B is not allowed. Kind of a DIY job, the installer didn't want to buy spools of THHW...

Unfortunately, it’s not a DIY, a sign contractor did the installation.

 

[stickboy1375]

Whats with all the NM run outdoors?

 

[mwm1752]

And I doubt the light pole is rated to have an overhead stretched to it.

JAP>

I think JAP has a point -- the pole is part of the luminiare and is most likely listed to support the fixture only

 

[david]

Whats with all the NM run outdoors?

1. 225.25 violation
2. NM-B in a location considered wet.
3. Conductor with white insulation being used as an ungrounded conductor (technically can’t re-identify the #12 copper because the wiring method is a raceway.
4. Though I didn’t post the picture of the device, the equipment ground run to the receptacle is not bonded to the device box
5. No arc fault warning label


Two through five we deal with on a daily basis, I wasn’t sure about what would be a safe re-lamping allowance . 225.25

I thought perhaps better insulation to protect the open splices from contact
Some here believe no amount of insulation would comply with 225.25

It has been suggested that the pole structure is not designed to be used in this way. (Structural issues) I have to be careful if I open that can of worms

Some believe the solution of requiring the service drop to land on an additional pole would solve both the structure issue and the 225.25 issue

 

[david]

I think JAP has a point -- the pole is part of the luminiare and is most likely listed to support the fixture only

I looked at the permit application. It was for a sign mounted on a pole. There were no parking lot lights or service equipment applied for.

The owner will most likely have the right to hire an engineer who will have the responsibility to consult with the manufacture of the parking lot light and pole.

Our department will consult with the engineer that the owner hires.

 

[mwm1752]

I looked at the permit application. It was for a sign mounted on a pole. There were no parking lot lights or service equipment applied for.

The owner will most likely have the right to hire an engineer who will have the responsibility to consult with the manufacture of the parking lot light and pole.

Our department will consult with the engineer that the owner hires.

so the post was not made specifically to mount the fixture as part of the luminaire? I know NEC 90.7 can be applicable but the enginneer would be reevaluating what a NRTL has already tested & listed for use, if it was listed as part of the luminiare assembly -- Most likely the 230.27 exception would also have to be implemented to miantain the min 18' over public walk ways ( just guessing from the pics)
41 0.6 Listing Required
All luminaires, lampholders, and retrofit kits shall be listed.
L uminaire. A complete lighting unit consisting of a light source such as a lamp or lamps, together with the parts designed to position the light source and connect it to the power supply. It may also include parts to protect the light source or the ballast or to distribute the light. A lampholder
itself is not a luminaire.

 

[petersonra]

I would suggest that a careful reading of 225.25 suggests that service equipment and service conductors are not part of what is excluded as it refers to "utilization equipment". I don't see how a service drop is "utilization equipment".

In any case, 225 is about outside branch circuits. I don't see how it covers service drops at all.

for some guidance though, you might look at 225.19(B).

 

[david]

I would suggest that a careful reading of 225.25 suggests that service equipment and service conductors are not part of what is excluded as it refers to "utilization equipment". I don't see how a service drop is "utilization equipment".

In any case, 225 is about outside branch circuits. I don't see how it covers service drops at all.

for some guidance though, you might look at 225.19(B).

The parking lot lighting is supplied by an outside branch circuit.

225.25 States “Locations of lamps for outdoor lighting shall be below all energized conductors”

The service drop conductors when attached below the light fixture on the lighting pole will be energized conductors

I'm not suggesting article 225 is dictating where the service drop conductors can be. I'm suggesting article 225 is addressing a lighting fixture above live conductors (service drop)

Edit: I read the section about other utilization equipment to be in relationship to transformers being on e type of equipment.

 

[david]

so the post was not made specifically to mount the fixture as part of the luminaire? I know NEC 90.7 can be applicable but the enginneer would be reevaluating what a NRTL has already tested & listed for use, if it was listed as part of the luminiare assembly -- Most likely the 230.27 exception would also have to be implemented to miantain the min 18' over public walk ways ( just guessing from the pics)
41 0.6 Listing Required
All luminaires, lampholders, and retrofit kits shall be listed.
L uminaire. A complete lighting unit consisting of a light source such as a lamp or lamps, together with the parts designed to position the light source and connect it to the power supply. It may also include parts to protect the light source or the ballast or to distribute the light. A lampholder
itself is not a luminaire.

I would look at the pole and light in that way.

But adding a service drop, a sign and the light pole as support for the service equipment may take an engineer consulting with the manufacture of the lighting pole, consideration of the length of the service drop. The drop will probably be around 75 ft. to a pole across the road not in the picture

 

[petersonra]

The parking lot lighting is supplied by an outside branch circuit.

225.25 States “Locations of lamps for outdoor lighting shall be below all energized conductors”

Read the rest of the sentence.

Locations of lamps for outdoor lighting shall be below all energized conductors, transformers, or other electric utilization equipment ...

it seems clear in context that the phrase "energized conductors" is part of the electric utilization equipment referred to in the same sentence.

I am not suggesting the installation is either a good idea or is safe, just that I am not convinced what you are citing actually prohibits it.

 

[david]

Read the rest of the sentence.



it seems clear in context that the phrase "energized conductors" is part of the electric utilization equipment referred to in the same sentence.

I am not suggesting the installation is either a good idea or is safe, just that I am not convinced what you are citing actually prohibits it.

Your reading of the section would be only energized conductors associated with a transformer
Or energized conductors associated with other utilization equipment.

And you are excluding other energized conductors such as the service drop attached just below the light fixture.

energized conductors comma (,)

 

[petersonra]

Your reading of the section would be only energized conductors associated with a transformer
Or energized conductors associated with other utilization equipment.

And you are excluding other energized conductors such as the service drop attached just below the light fixture.

energized conductors comma (,)

it is not a well written passage.

it is certainly a legitimate reading of the passage to suggest the energized conductors it refers to are those associated with the utilization equipment.

if you want to red tag it based on ambiguous language, it won't offend me at all. most installers are probably just going to accept your conclusion and figure out how to deal with it. to me it is not especially safe as is. Maybe you can get them to raise the mast above the lights.

 

[david]

Research shows the utilities reg. require 24 in. min. horizontal clearance between the service drop attachment point and the lighting fixture if a customer owned light is installed above the utility company service drop.

Thanks to everyone who made comment on 225.25

 

[GoldDigger]

Research shows the utilities reg. require 24 in. min. horizontal clearance between the service drop attachment point and the lighting fixture if a customer owned light is installed above the utility company service drop.

So, not exactly your job to enforce, but you are free to point out to them that POCO will not make a connection to it as it stands.