sandsnow
Senior Member
- Location
- Southern California
A cable trench is typically used here for large services. A sub-surface concrete "wireway" apporx. 24" deep with diamond plate covers is constructed. Cables are racked along the sides. Trench extends from vault under padmount to under UGPS. The conductors would be service lateral conductors.
We are thinking we should bond the covers of these "enclosures". 250.80 doesn't exactly cover, but 250.86 seems to be a catch all.
Next thought. After looking in 230.32 (which refers you to 230.43), this cable trench does not appear to be a recognized wiring method for srvice lateral conductors. The closest thing to it would be wireways. So should we even allow these??
This cable trench is a requirement by the local POCO and is a customer owned structure, so it is not under exclusive control of the utility.
Just wanted to get some input before (IF) I make a big stink about something that has been an accepted practice for years.
Maybe we should ask the utility to take full responsibility for the cable trench, in other words put it under their exclusive control.
We are thinking we should bond the covers of these "enclosures". 250.80 doesn't exactly cover, but 250.86 seems to be a catch all.
Next thought. After looking in 230.32 (which refers you to 230.43), this cable trench does not appear to be a recognized wiring method for srvice lateral conductors. The closest thing to it would be wireways. So should we even allow these??
This cable trench is a requirement by the local POCO and is a customer owned structure, so it is not under exclusive control of the utility.
Just wanted to get some input before (IF) I make a big stink about something that has been an accepted practice for years.
Maybe we should ask the utility to take full responsibility for the cable trench, in other words put it under their exclusive control.