The 1999 Code states that swimming pools may not be placed under existing overhead service drops or any other open overhead wiring (Section 680.8). The wording in the 2002 Code was changed and now indicates that overhead clearances shall follow Table 680.8 and Figure 680.8. The 2002 Code seems to allow these conductors (0-750 volts) to be over a pool if they are at least 22.5 ft. above the surface of the water. Is this correct? Thanks... Marty
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Conductors over swimming pool
- Thread starter Martythed
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
BAHTAH
Senior Member
- Location
- United States
Re: Conductors over swimming pool
Reviewing the 2002 NEC 680.8 handbook comments the following is stated" Service drop conductors, conductors of network-powered broadband communications systems, and area feeders and branch circuits are permitted to be located above a swimming pool and associated pool structures where provided with the clearances specified in Table 680.8." The comments go on to tell about how the clearances take into account the use of skimmers with aluminum handles and provide sufficient separation between conductors and the pool. The comments also talk about how sometimes it is unavoidable and a pool must be located below electric conductors. The clearances were increased in 1999 and the new requirements harmonized the NEC with ANSI C2, National Electrical Safety Code. Based on that information and the fact that the 2002 and 2005 NEC articles 680.0 do not say you cannot place a pool under the overhead conductors, I would say you are correct. While the NEC does not cover the unility sevice drop, Article 680.8 is not ment to require the utility to meet the clearance, it requires that if you install a pool under the conductors, you make sure the clearances are met. I see where Mike Holt has added the words "must not be placed under" in his writing of 680.8, but unless there has been some change I do not see those words in the NEC.
Reviewing the 2002 NEC 680.8 handbook comments the following is stated" Service drop conductors, conductors of network-powered broadband communications systems, and area feeders and branch circuits are permitted to be located above a swimming pool and associated pool structures where provided with the clearances specified in Table 680.8." The comments go on to tell about how the clearances take into account the use of skimmers with aluminum handles and provide sufficient separation between conductors and the pool. The comments also talk about how sometimes it is unavoidable and a pool must be located below electric conductors. The clearances were increased in 1999 and the new requirements harmonized the NEC with ANSI C2, National Electrical Safety Code. Based on that information and the fact that the 2002 and 2005 NEC articles 680.0 do not say you cannot place a pool under the overhead conductors, I would say you are correct. While the NEC does not cover the unility sevice drop, Article 680.8 is not ment to require the utility to meet the clearance, it requires that if you install a pool under the conductors, you make sure the clearances are met. I see where Mike Holt has added the words "must not be placed under" in his writing of 680.8, but unless there has been some change I do not see those words in the NEC.
Re: Conductors over swimming pool
Grant........ thanks for the info. The latest Code Handbook I have is the 1999 one, but I have three other Code related books, 2002 or 2005, and all three repeat what's in the 1999 Code rather than what's in the 2002 Code. I thought that odd, but perhaps all of them just missed the change. Thanks again........ Marty
Grant........ thanks for the info. The latest Code Handbook I have is the 1999 one, but I have three other Code related books, 2002 or 2005, and all three repeat what's in the 1999 Code rather than what's in the 2002 Code. I thought that odd, but perhaps all of them just missed the change. Thanks again........ Marty
- Status
- Not open for further replies.