Are overhead lines permitted above swimming pools?

[K8MHZ]

I have no problem with them asking the POCO to move the drop, but would have a problem if they fail my inspection over something I had no control over. Like I said before if I am responsible for mounting the attachment point, I don't have a problem with failing the height of attachment point if it doesn't allow for proper clearances but do have a problem if the POCO leaves excess sag in the conductor that causes a clearance violation and they pin that on me.

It's kind of a strange situation. The EC doesn't get failed, rather the installation won't get approved if the drop on private property does not comply with the requirements in 230. If the EC physically can't locate a weather head so the drop is in compliance, then the inspector calls the POCO engineer and they meet to come up with a suitable solution. Sometimes it's just taking out sag, other times it's moving the drop from one side of the property to the other.

But, as iwire has pointed out, such practice is not covered in the NEC and may be part of our state rules. I suppose I should know that, having had to deal with it for so long.

 

[K8MHZ]

From the Michigan Electrical Code. I wonder if other states do the same thing.

80.1. Scope. The code regulates the design, installation, maintenance, alteration, and inspection of electrical systems including all wiring, fixtures, appliances, and appurtenances in connection with the utilization of electrical energy, within or on a building, structure, or properties, and including service entrance wiring as defined by the code.

Highlighted by me.

 

[electricguy61]

On a potential panel upgrade (100amp Zinsco to new 200 amp) I went to the San Jose building dept and discussed with electrical inspection supervisor. They required the mast be installed high enough to provide the 22' clearance at the pool (would have been @ 10' of rigid above the roof line).

My plan was to build the mast on the ground and connect the POCO wires, then raise the mast like the flag at Iwo Jima. POCO would then connect at the pole.

Customer decided he didn't want to spend the money for the job so it became moot

 

[kwired]

On a potential panel upgrade (100amp Zinsco to new 200 amp) I went to the San Jose building dept and discussed with electrical inspection supervisor. They required the mast be installed high enough to provide the 22' clearance at the pool (would have been @ 10' of rigid above the roof line).

My plan was to build the mast on the ground and connect the POCO wires, then raise the mast like the flag at Iwo Jima. POCO would then connect at the pole.

Customer decided he didn't want to spend the money for the job so it became moot

That is a case where one has to ask why they can afford a pool but can't afford to run the service underground



As far as replies that note the drop coming down during a storm and nobody should be in the pool - true. But why can't the wind in combination with a storm here and there weaken an attachment and it finally lets go on a nice day when pool is occupied? Why can't a vehicle crash into the pole the supply comes from and the line ends up dropping into pool while occupied? Overhead lines just are not that good of a design over a pool even if allowed by codes.

 

[electricguy61]

That is a case where one has to ask why they can afford a pool but can't afford to run the service underground



As far as replies that note the drop coming down during a storm and nobody should be in the pool - true. But why can't the wind in combination with a storm here and there weaken an attachment and it finally lets go on a nice day when pool is occupied? Why can't a vehicle crash into the pole the supply comes from and the line ends up dropping into pool while occupied? Overhead lines just are not that good of a design over a pool even if allowed by codes.

The pool had been there for decades. They wanted to change/upgrade their old Zinsco panel. Not sure what code for height over pools was when the pool was installed, but the city insisted that the upgrade meet current requirements.

 

[kwired]

The pool had been there for decades. They wanted to change/upgrade their old Zinsco panel. Not sure what code for height over pools was when the pool was installed, but the city insisted that the upgrade meet current requirements.

Understand, but one still has to ask why in some cases. But I guess you are probably in an area where weather is not normally a big factor in downed lines like it is here. Even on a sunny day we have high winds sometimes just working on hardware that supports overhead lines, they do just randomly have something let loose under otherwise fair weather conditions because of all the wear that has accumulated, and there seems to be more of a general push in this region to bury utilities instead of let them dangle - and even bigger push to do so where they cross private property.

Whenever we do have a weather incident that causes downed lines the majority of repairs is service drops and is usually somewhat limited on distribution system failures. On top of that the attachment point at the structure served seems to fail most often instead of the attachment point on the pole.

Unfortunately for best safety it probably should be somehow designed to cleanly break away all conductors at the pole, when there is too much tension on a line.

 

[eprice]

Look again at 90.2 (B)(5). For those conductors to be exempt from the NEC, they would need to qualify under one of the conditions a through d. Unless the conductors are in an easement, I don't think they are exempt.

 

[david]

I'm not sure I agree that the utility drop is of no concern to the inspector. Most of the time pool permits are applied for on existing dwelling locations. And if you pick a location under an existing utility drop the inspector has every right to take issue with the pool location. If you want to say the utility drop is the sole concern of the utility, I would think the inspector would say fine but the location of the pool under that utility drop is with in the scope of the NEC

 

[david]

Point of attachment was also mentioned in this thread. I failed a good friend of mine change of service over point of attachment issues.

The original point of attachment came from a pole and cleared the corner of the neighbor?s house by just six inches. 12 X 14 section of my friend?s house was demo and the point of attachment was moved 12 feet now causing the utility service drop to rub the corner of the neighbor?s house and the corner of the neighbor?s house caused a bend in the existing utility service drop.

If the point of attachment causes a code violation. I am not sure the inspectors needs to be un concerned with clearance violations

 

[iwire]

From the Michigan Electrical Code. I wonder if other states do the same thing.



Highlighted by me.

Look at the NEC definition of service entrance conductors, they are the conductors on the customer side of the service point.

They are not the utility owned conductors.

 

[iwire]

Look again at 90.2 (B)(5). For those conductors to be exempt from the NEC, they would need to qualify under one of the conditions a through d. Unless the conductors are in an easement, I don't think they are exempt.

No need to be in an easement, they fall under 90.2(B)5)(a).

 

[curt swartz]

On a potential panel upgrade (100amp Zinsco to new 200 amp) I went to the San Jose building dept and discussed with electrical inspection supervisor. They required the mast be installed high enough to provide the 22' clearance at the pool (would have been @ 10' of rigid above the roof line).

My plan was to build the mast on the ground and connect the POCO wires, then raise the mast like the flag at Iwo Jima. POCO would then connect at the pole.

Customer decided he didn't want to spend the money for the job so it became moot

I have had this discussion with San Jose and several other Bay Area cities. The utilities requirements are much more lax than the NEC. I have yet to win an argument with any of them over the service drop clearance. They insist the NEC applies even though the State Public Utilities Commission says otherwise. If the NEC covers service drop clearance shouldn't it also cover the size and insulation type?

Here is what the State of California has to say:

The CPUC, not local agencies or codes, regulates, by its adoption of G.O. 95, the installation and clearances of utility-owned, operated, and maintained supply lines and service drops. G.O. 95 contains specific requirements for installing and maintaining utility supply-line and service-drop clearances above swimming pools.

 

[electricguy61]

I have had this discussion with San Jose and several other Bay Area cities. The utilities requirements are much more lax than the NEC. I have yet to win an argument with any of them over the service drop clearance. They insist the NEC applies even though the State Public Utilities Commission says otherwise. If the NEC covers service drop clearance shouldn't it also cover the size and insulation type?

Here is what the State of California has to say:

The CPUC, not local agencies or codes, regulates, by its adoption of G.O. 95, the installation and clearances of utility-owned, operated, and maintained supply lines and service drops. G.O. 95 contains specific requirements for installing and maintaining utility supply-line and service-drop clearances above swimming pools.

I argued the same thing, but to no avail. Bottom line is: no permit or passed inspection, no utility connection.

In realty, 22' seems way to high. I can see 12' to 15' to avoid hitting a utility drop with a pool net. But it is the NEC regulation, and "Resistance is Futile" (to quote the Borg)

 

[JRW 70]

Clearances

Clearances

In the 2012 NESC, in table 232-1 for supply cables
of 0 to 750V over water areas not suitable for
sailboating etc... The clearance is 4.4m (14.432ft)
Some states of course have variations on their limits,
but the question of was the pool there first or the
service drop. If the utility either used the NESC in
its entirety or like my employer uses it as a resource
for our own service regs. which parallels the NESC
probably about 90%. Then ~14ft clearance would
be perfectly acceptable. I'll ask transmission and
distribution later if I can remember if we use that
table I mentioned above (as there are several that
may be applicable.)

However in all things common sense should prevail.
Don't go swimming in a hurricane etc.

 

[iwire]

They insist the NEC applies even though the State Public Utilities Commission says otherwise. If the NEC covers service drop clearance shouldn't it also cover the size and insulation type?

Exactly!! This is a point I bring up often in these threads and no one will address it.

No one seems to have an issue understand that the NEC ampacity and listing requirements do not apply to the very same conductors they claim NEC height requirements apply to.

It makes no sense at all.

 

[kwired]

Exactly!! This is a point I bring up often in these threads and no one will address it.

No one seems to have an issue understand that the NEC ampacity and listing requirements do not apply to the very same conductors they claim NEC height requirements apply to.

It makes no sense at all.

Agree, and IMO 2011 NEC made that even more clear with a few definitions including "service point".

The only thing I can say that possibly can be an issue for the contractor, owner, etc. is if they are responsible for attachment point, then they possibly need to locate it where the drop will provide sufficient clearance

 

[david]

Agree, and IMO 2011 NEC made that even more clear with a few definitions including "service point".

The only thing I can say that possibly can be an issue for the contractor, owner, etc. is if they are responsible for attachment point, then they possibly need to locate it where the drop will provide sufficient clearance

In your area who installs the point of attachment (Knob, Insulator)? Around here the utility does not run a lag into a structure not owned by the utility,
The electrician takes responsibility here for installing the point of attachment. The utility may add a requirement for a guide wire to strengthen a mast installation but the installation is all the electricians

Note from the utility regulations dated October 2014 our utility engineers believe the NEC.. Clearance requirements apply to utility owned overhead conductors . They specifically call out clearance complying with the NEC and also NESC. As outlined through out there written regulations

3.15 Buildings/Structures & Swimming Pools near Electric Lines

The Company does not recommend placing a swimming pool under its existing service drop or other electrical conductors. Specifically, a swimming pool shall not be located within a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet of the Company's overhead conductors measured horizontally from the edge of the pool without written approval from the Company. The clearance between the Company's underground cables (primary and secondary) and the edge of the pool or its auxiliary equipment shall not be less than five (5) feet (measured horizontally).
NESC/NEC clearances shall be maintained. The customer should consult the Company for specific clearance requirements and possible easement restrictions.
Page 11 October 2014

5.0 PERMANENT SERVICE ? OVERHEAD

5.1 General The point of attachment of the service drop to the building shall be such that the drip loop shall not be less than ten (10) feet above the ground. In addition, the point of attachment shall be located to allow the Company to comply with NESC/NEC clearance requirements. The attachment should not be more than 24 feet above ground unless a greater height is necessary for proper clearances.
Page 13 October 2014

 

[david]

" the point of attachment shall be located to allow the Company to comply"

I think its worth noting that the utility electrical engineers make the clearances the installers responsibility the installed attachment point will allow the company to comply with the NEC and NESC

It becomes a joint effort, but the utility is limited by easement agreements and right always so unless the installers equipment has a location that allows the NEC and the NESC to be met the utility will not provide service.

 

[JRW 70]

Clearances

Clearances

I see in an above post a minimum of 10ft,
however our regs. require the 4.4 meter
height (~14ft) in general. Anything over
750V to ground is either not permitted or
some seriously large bill will descend on
the customer to have the line crews move
that section, if even possible.

Like said above if you can afford an in-ground
pool, then you can afford directional boring for
an underground service.

Good planning is a must in all endeavors great and
small. Just common sense.

JR

 

[kwired]

In your area who installs the point of attachment (Knob, Insulator)? Around here the utility does not run a lag into a structure not owned by the utility,
The electrician takes responsibility here for installing the point of attachment. The utility may add a requirement for a guide wire to strengthen a mast installation but the installation is all the electricians

Note from the utility regulations dated October 2014 our utility engineers believe the NEC.. Clearance requirements apply to utility owned overhead conductors . They specifically call out clearance complying with the NEC and also NESC. As outlined through out there written regulations

3.15 Buildings/Structures & Swimming Pools near Electric Lines

The Company does not recommend placing a swimming pool under its existing service drop or other electrical conductors. Specifically, a swimming pool shall not be located within a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet of the Company's overhead conductors measured horizontally from the edge of the pool without written approval from the Company. The clearance between the Company's underground cables (primary and secondary) and the edge of the pool or its auxiliary equipment shall not be less than five (5) feet (measured horizontally).
NESC/NEC clearances shall be maintained. The customer should consult the Company for specific clearance requirements and possible easement restrictions.
Page 11 October 2014

5.0 PERMANENT SERVICE ? OVERHEAD

5.1 General The point of attachment of the service drop to the building shall be such that the drip loop shall not be less than ten (10) feet above the ground. In addition, the point of attachment shall be located to allow the Company to comply with NESC/NEC clearance requirements. The attachment should not be more than 24 feet above ground unless a greater height is necessary for proper clearances.
Page 13 October 2014

Who installs attachment point? Generally not the POCO. Is there consistency between POCO's on how they enforce clearances of the drop/ attachment point, etc? No, but it has gotten more consistent over past 20 years or so, we still have many small municipal POCO's and those are the ones that you run into some of the most bizarre things at times. They are usually only only a two to five man operations crew, the city/village clerk is also the utility clerk, the city/village board is the governing board but they know little about power maintenance and construction and mostly only get involved in financial matters, this leaves the operation supervisor in a position to do thing the way he wants when it comes to installation practices and policies - and they generally only care about what makes their job easier, since they have a such a small crew the supervisor is doing a lot of the installing himself and sets policies accordingly. That don't necessarily bother me so much, just wish for some of these there was more consistency. You may find on one project they are willing to provide items for you and on the next similar project you have to provide everything - makes it hard to bid or estimate when working in those cities/villages as you just don't know how busy the supervisor feels they are when you ask, and if they don't have the time (or just don't feel like having the time) you are doing more of the work on a particular project This often is a bigger issue for underground service then an overhead service - but the fact still is there is no real general set of rules they go by - just depends on the mood of the supervisor at the time.