Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

High Voltage Fence Heights

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    High Voltage Fence Heights

    NEC 110.31 specifies that fences around high voltage equipment need to be 7' high, or 6' + 1' of barbed wire. Unlike pool fencing, it's not very specific about maximum gaps, particularly at the bottom. I'm inclined to say a 6' chain link fence with a 1' gap at the bottom would be permissible- anyone else have strong opinions?

    As we dedicate large areas of land across the country to these solar farms, I'd really like to see the NEC consider the fact that these fences are now being applied to much larger areas than your typical substation. I don't see why we shouldn't allow for small gaps at the bottom to promote the movement of small animals... no need to take away their habitats entirely, right?

    #2
    Originally posted by jcrawford View Post
    NEC 110.31 specifies that fences around high voltage equipment need to be 7' high, or 6' + 1' of barbed wire. Unlike pool fencing, it's not very specific about maximum gaps, particularly at the bottom. I'm inclined to say a 6' chain link fence with a 1' gap at the bottom would be permissible- anyone else have strong opinions?

    As we dedicate large areas of land across the country to these solar farms, I'd really like to see the NEC consider the fact that these fences are now being applied to much larger areas than your typical substation. I don't see why we shouldn't allow for small gaps at the bottom to promote the movement of small animals... no need to take away their habitats entirely, right?
    Unfortunately, this is a blind spot in the NEC & NESC. Our conservation commission actually required that we trench the fence 6 inches below finished grade, to keep small animals out.

    This fence height issue is a consistent problem. Few (if any) manufacturers actually make a 7 ft fence fabric, so it is a practical choice between a 6 ft fence with barb wire and an 8 ft fence.

    Comment


      #3
      A one foot gap at the bottom, unless restricted by a run of barbed wire, seems to me to be a very attractive nuisance for small kids as well as small animals. Not a great idea.
      A lot would depend, IMHO, on whether the actual high voltage danger areas inside the large area outer fence had their own local protection too.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by GoldDigger View Post
        A one foot gap at the bottom, unless restricted by a run of barbed wire, seems to me to be a very attractive nuisance for small kids as well as small animals. Not a great idea.
        A lot would depend, IMHO, on whether the actual high voltage danger areas inside the large area outer fence had their own local protection too.
        I agree. I'd rather see a 5 foot fence then have a 1 foot gap at the bottom if the main intent is keeping people and animals away from exposed high voltage components.
        I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

        Comment


          #5
          This is an interesting topic. I have reviewed several projects that have a 1' gap, or more, at the bottom of the fence to allow for the movement of animals through the site. Obviously a small person or child could easily get under the fence. The question is then, does the fence count as a means of isolating the energized conductors in the array from unqualified persons or do we need to install some type of protection on the back of the arrays to contain the conductors? Most AHJs seem to feel that the fence, even with a huge gap at the bottom, will prevent unqualified persons from accessing the array. I am personally not sold on this idea.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by pv_n00b View Post
            This is an interesting topic. I have reviewed several projects that have a 1' gap, or more, at the bottom of the fence to allow for the movement of animals through the site. Obviously a small person or child could easily get under the fence. The question is then, does the fence count as a means of isolating the energized conductors in the array from unqualified persons or do we need to install some type of protection on the back of the arrays to contain the conductors? Most AHJs seem to feel that the fence, even with a huge gap at the bottom, will prevent unqualified persons from accessing the array. I am personally not sold on this idea.
            I am a bit confused. Is a fence even required for a typical commercial or utility scale PV system? I breezed through 110 and 225 and dont think so. I havent seen any exposed energized parts on the ones I have worked on. Why would these require more protection than a system on a residential property?
            Ethan Brush - East West Electric. NY, WA. MA

            "You can't generalize"

            Comment


              #7
              Yeah, I've worked on quite a few solar and wind projects where you could walk right up to all the apparatus. I really don't see how the intent of 110.31 was that everything using electricity should have a fence around it: The vast majority of that equipment would fall under the exception for section (D) anyway.

              Comment


                #8
                The problem for solar is the second paragraph of 690.31. The fence has been considered a means to make the conductors no longer 'readily accessible'.

                There's also a new requirement in the 2017 code for 5MW and up. 691.4 (2).

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by jaggedben View Post
                  The problem for solar is the second paragraph of 690.31. The fence has been considered a means to make the conductors no longer 'readily accessible'.

                  There's also a new requirement in the 2017 code for 5MW and up. 691.4 (2).
                  There is also a change in "readily accessible" in 2017, a keyed lock on the gate will now make those conductors "readily accessible".

                  Don't know if they changed things like you mentioned in 690.31, if not they may be left with some sections whose intent is contradicted.
                  I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by kwired View Post
                    There is also a change in "readily accessible" in 2017, a keyed lock on the gate will now make those conductors "readily accessible".

                    Don't know if they changed things like you mentioned in 690.31, if not they may be left with some sections whose intent is contradicted.
                    Yes, good points. Something was bothering me about what I said about readily accessible. I had read that definition revision the other day but couldn't put my finger on it. I do think a change to 690.31 would be in order.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      NFPA-1 Rules

                      There are some requirements in NFPA-1 related to Ground Mounted Photovoltaic System (GMPV) also.

                      Section 11.12.3 covers GMPV Systems

                      11.12.3.1 requires a 10' clear area around a GMPV system

                      11.12.3.2 states that a noncombustible base under a GMPV be installed acceptable to the AHJ (of note is that dirt with minor growth in not considered noncombustible by appendix A)

                      11.12.3.3 Fencing, skirting or other suitable security barriers shall be installed when required by the AHJ

                      These rules apply to all Ground Mounted PV Systems if adopted in your area. I would say the Fire Chief would be the AHJ on these rules.


                      Having a 1' space at the bottom of a GMPV seems to high to me. Curious kids would easily crawl under that space. We were required to a have 6 inch bottom clearance on a GMPV system for turtles to pass through.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by jcrawford View Post
                        NEC 110.31 specifies that fences around high voltage equipment need to be 7' high, or 6' + 1' of barbed wire. Unlike pool fencing, it's not very specific about maximum gaps, particularly at the bottom. I'm inclined to say a 6' chain link fence with a 1' gap at the bottom would be permissible- anyone else have strong opinions?

                        As we dedicate large areas of land across the country to these solar farms, I'd really like to see the NEC consider the fact that these fences are now being applied to much larger areas than your typical substation. I don't see why we shouldn't allow for small gaps at the bottom to promote the movement of small animals... no need to take away their habitats entirely, right?
                        I am an animal lover, but realistically, I can't see providing easy access for curious kids in order to provide easy access for small animals to be very prudent. For one thing, most small animals, if not all, wanting access to the inside of the fence will just dig under it. To an adventurous 10 year old, a fence with a one foot gap at the bottom is pretty much no fence at all.
                        Cheers and Stay Safe,

                        Marky the Sparky

                        Comment


                          #13
                          If you are an animal lover, you probably don't want them inside and subject to the high voltage either.

                          Risk for a turtle may not be that high. A migrating turtle has other obstacles to go around as well, so this structure isn't really that big of a deal IMO, when they cross roads they are in higher danger.
                          I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by kwired View Post
                            If you are an animal lover, you probably don't want them inside and subject to the high voltage either.

                            Risk for a turtle may not be that high. A migrating turtle has other obstacles to go around as well, so this structure isn't really that big of a deal IMO, when they cross roads they are in higher danger.
                            We actually have a turtle fence that cost taxpayers $318,000. Here is a video of it. The power plant in the background is the B.C. Cobb plant. It was totally shut down a few months ago. The 660 foot stack is going to be demo'd sometime in the future. That has nothing to do with the fence, the fence was to keep the turtles off the highway.

                            Cheers and Stay Safe,

                            Marky the Sparky

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by K8MHZ View Post
                              We actually have a turtle fence that cost taxpayers $318,000. Here is a video of it. The power plant in the background is the B.C. Cobb plant. It was totally shut down a few months ago. The 660 foot stack is going to be demo'd sometime in the future. That has nothing to do with the fence, the fence was to keep the turtles off the highway.

                              Did they give the turtles an alternate route? My understanding is many of them migrate to a certain place for breeding, and that is where they want to go to. The fence though it protects them from the road hazards doesn't change the fact they have a destination they are seeking.
                              I live for today, I'm just a day behind.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X