Overhead Service Point Of Attachment

Status
Not open for further replies.
A/A Fuel GTX

A/A Fuel GTX

Senior Member
Location
WI & AZ
Occupation
Electrician
Is there anything in the Code that prohibits placing the point of attachment on an overhead service riser above a rigid coupling? The coupling would be roughly 2' below the point of attachment.
 
A/A Fuel GTX said:
Is there anything in the Code that prohibits placing the point of attachment on an overhead service riser above a rigid coupling? The coupling would be roughly 2' below the point of attachment.
Click to expand...
The only code rule is in 230.28. It is a very generic rule. It is my understanding that many utilities have rules that prohibit a coupling in the unsupported part of a service riser. I would use a full length of conduit for the top part of the riser and put the nipple at the bottom.
 
A/A Fuel GTX said:
Is there anything in the Code that prohibits placing the point of attachment on an overhead service riser above a rigid coupling? The coupling would be roughly 2' below the point of attachment.
Click to expand...
As far as I know that's usually a POCO rule that applies to service masts that go through and above the roof. If you're conduit is firmly attached to the house it shouldn't be a problem. In addition, I would also like to point out that the POCO's in my area also require the service head to be located above the point of attachment or service hook as shown on page A-7 of this PSE&G manual http://www.pseg.com/business/builders/new_service/before/pdf/RequirementsElecSvc2005.pdf
 
iwire said:
Than I would ask what you are using for overhead conductors for use under the NEC?
Click to expand...

The conductors are the typical POCO tri plex with an aluminum/steel messenger. The OP is the result of an installation I came across earlier last week, hence all the questions.
 
Last edited:
A/A Fuel GTX said:
The conductors are the typical POCO tri plex with an aluminum/steel messenger. The OP is the result of an installation I came across earlier last week, hence all the questions.
Click to expand...

There have been many threads in the past where this has come up - that particular cable is not a NEC recognized cable or conductor, therefore unless you are the POCO installing a service drop it is not allowed. That said nobody has ever come up with something that is reasonable to use for the application other than run a messenger wire and hang something NEC approved off of it.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
That is also required by Section 230.54(C) in the NEC, however there is an exception in the NEC rule.
Click to expand...

Good catch Don. Here is the exception :
Exception: Where it is impracticable to locate the service head or gooseneck above the point of attachment, the service head or gooseneck location shall be permitted not farther than 600 mm (24 in.) from the point of attachment.
Click to expand...
 
goldstar said:
As far as I know that's usually a POCO rule that applies to service masts that go through and above the roof. If you're conduit is firmly attached to the house it shouldn't be a problem. In addition, I would also like to point out that the POCO's in my area also require the service head to be located above the point of attachment or service hook as shown on page A-7 of this PSE&G manual http://www.pseg.com/business/builders/new_service/before/pdf/RequirementsElecSvc2005.pdf
Click to expand...

As far as we can tell the OP is talking about a rigid riser that is being used to support the service drop. I did not look at your link, what you are talking about probably is for attachments that are not attached to the RMC. That said have you ever seen a thru the roof mast with the POA higher than the weatherhead?;)
 
kwired said:
As far as we can tell the OP is talking about a rigid riser that is being used to support the service drop. I did not look at your link, what you are talking about probably is for attachments that are not attached to the RMC. That said have you ever seen a thru the roof mast with the POA higher than the weatherhead?;)
Click to expand...
No, but I have the unfortunate knack of finding weird things. So, if I find one I'll let you know:cool:

That said, I didn't mean to pirate the OP. Sorry.
 
kwired said:
That said nobody has ever come up with something that is reasonable to use for the application other than run a messenger wire and hang something NEC approved off of it.
Click to expand...

Which would be much less secure than the triplex or quadplex the POCO'S use. Why would the NEC not recognize this cable assembly?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top