225.25

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

david

Senior Member
Location
Pennsylvania
What would be an expectable safeguard for re-lamping when there is no way to provide a disconnect for the service drop below the lighting fixtures
 

Attachments

  • 20150715_142639.jpg
    20150715_142639.jpg
    145.7 KB · Views: 0
is this even a legal installation?

are you worried about not being able to disconnect the incoming service when relamping? There is bound to be some way to open the service wires, even if you have to call the POCO to do it.
 
petersonra said:
is this even a legal installation?

are you worried about not being able to disconnect the incoming service when relamping? There is bound to be some way to open the service wires, even if you have to call the POCO to do it.
Click to expand...

I think he is referring to the service drop being hot. I tend to agree with him that situation would not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling. I don't know of a code that prohibits it, but good work practice would.
 
I’m the inspector and I’m looking for comments on what would be a safe guard to except the lighting fixture above the service drop from the utility. Since 225.25 mentions “Clearances or other safeguards are provided for re-lamping operations.” What is an acceptable safe guard ?
 
Would extra protection something like requiring mastic pads in addition to common electrical tape be enough to meet 225.25, If I call out the violation the electrician will want some explanation to what an acceptable safe guard would be.
 
david said:
Would extra protection something like requiring mastic pads in addition to common electrical tape be enough to meet 225.25, If I call out the violation the electrician will want some explanation to what an acceptable safe guard would be.
Click to expand...


Although no further information is given in the Code (which pretty much leaves it up to you, the inspector), I would feel that either additional thickness insulation or mechanical protection on the wires as you describe OR a rigid cover over the whole top of the weatherhead and wires, so that a scissor or bucket lift or ladder could not scrape them and the maintenance person could not accidentally touch them or drop anything on them, would do.

To actually protect from lift contact, it might even require a sturdy open "roll cage" attached to the pole and maintaining distance from the wires. (It would have to be grounded, of course. :))

It looks like the service wires are not yet connected. A lot will depend on just where the utility is going to route them. Hopefully not in front of the lamp holders. That leaves you with insufficient information to know what would be required.
 
Thanks for the comment, the idea of mastic hit me while I was looking at the picture. I'm going to have to run this by other inspectors in the office here but they are going to want a recommendation from me

Not that we have to come up with a solution for the installer, our department does try to help in that process.
 
david said:
What would be an expectable safeguard for re-lamping when there is no way to provide a disconnect for the service drop below the lighting fixtures
Click to expand...
I feel 225.25(1) can not be provided in this situation if it is not approved by someone (who will take the responsibility??? And will say I provided safeguards etc.).

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
Just an additional note, you go out to this site and try and work with them in regards to 225.25

The panel could have had # 2 alum service entrance conductors to a main lug panel no way the load is even going to be close to a 100 amps

The #2 alum SE cable protected with a 100 amp main breaker.

There is 12/2 NM-B cable in the pole raceway supplying he light fixtures taps.

The receptacle below the 100 amp panel is supplied using 12/2 NM –B

The devise box is not bonded with the equipment ground.

And we still try and work with them in trying to find a solution for 225.25
 

Attachments

  • 20150715_143338.jpg
    20150715_143338.jpg
    142.3 KB · Views: 0
I honestly don't think the power company around here would even attach to such a thing.


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

JAP>
 
The wind rating of a pole would be something to take into consideration.
I doubt one of this size is rated to have an overhead attached to it.


JAP>
 
Far as that, it may be exceeded by whats installed on it already.

JAP>
 
Let me know where that is though, so I'll remember not to park next to it. :)


JAP>
 
david said:
we have that concern as well that is the next step before dealing with other issues. we need to contact the utility.
Click to expand...

I think I would start with the manufacturer of the pole and send them the picture of what they installed on it.

I bet It wont take long for all of the other issues to get resolved.


JAP>
 
jap said:
Let me know where that is though, so I'll remember not to park next to it. :)


JAP>
Click to expand...

I’m only there to look at the electrical issues, The building inspector hasn’t been to the site yet.

He has to compare the permit application to what actually was installed. It may very well take an approval from an engineer before this thing gets a final
 
I would think as the inspector you could cite the code section you did. As far as a solution, I would say, the service drop needs to be on a separate pole or the light fixtures need to be on the opposite (at least 270 degrees) out from what is there. Obviously you would need to talk to your boss assuming he is the actual AHJ, but that code section leaves it up to him to make the decision and I Don't think insulation is enough. Of course the local power company around here provides pole site lighting wired with their service, leaving a similar situation. One would wonder if they turn the circuit off before working in today's safety world.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top