Looking for insight on this installation

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tonype

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
I was looking at some roof-top HVAC equipment for a client. Just out of professional curiosity, I took pictures of the electrical service, since it was something I have never saw before. I believe the building was constructed in the 1950's and was originally a department type store. Anyway, the closeness of the wires to the roof and building bother me and I wanted to get some insight from this forum - any comments?

Regards,
Tony
Photobucket Photobucket
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

All the conductors in question most likely belongs to the power company and as such the NEC has no say in the clearances.

90.2 Scope.

(B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:

(5)Installations under the exclusive control of an electric utility where such installations

a.Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated metering,
Click to expand...
That aside it is pretty ugly. :(
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

Bob:

Thanks for the quick response.

So as I understand it, based on your comment, the wiring from the pole transformers to the building are usually "owned" by the utility. Isn't there still a concern with respect to the clearance to the roof (not to mention safety to any worker - note the closeness of the metal vent/chimney for the boiler :eek: )? If this type of installation was constructed today, what would have been done differently?

Regards,
Tony
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

Hi Tony keep in mind that what I say is just my opinion and not necessarily fact. I do try to provide a code reference so you can make up your own mind.

The power companies usually operate under the NESC (National Electrical Safety Code) and there probably are rules in the NESC that are being violated in your photos. I say probably because I do not know much about the NESC.

Is what you show a concern?

In my opinion yes.

What can be done?

Usually not much, you could call the power company and voice your concerns but IMO that will fall on deaf ears.

If the building owner wanted to they could pay an electrician to relocate the service point around the corner so that the power company wiring would not have to pass over the roof.

However judging from the looks of the service working on it would open a whole can of worms as to bringing the service into 2005 compliance.

I doubt the owner will want to spend the cash.
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

The NESC does have clearance requirements, I don't have the most recent edition at home, but my 1993 edition says 3.5' of clearance if the roof is not readily accessible to people.

There was no clearance requirement for voltages less than 300 volts until 1977, so the installation may well be grandfathered in.

Jim T
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

...If the building owner wanted to they could pay an electrician to relocate the service point around the corner so that the power company wiring would not have to pass over the roof...
Click to expand...
If they were willing to pay anything at all, I'd suggest that they pay for the whole thing to be relocated underground. Looks like the distance involved is minimal, and that would be a worthwhile expense. :eek:
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

Jim:

I'm a neophyte at this, and I did not check it further since I was only at the building for the HVAC systems, but is it possible that this is 440/460-volt service? If so, what are (or were) the requirements?

Regards,
Tony :)
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

225.19 specifies the clearances above roofs.

one may argue that these conductors are under the control of the POCO but everywhere i have been we had so design our work to comply with this section. sometimes on long runs the POCO would make us adjust the height of the mast to allow for the sag in the drop conductors based on the length of the run.
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

__________________________________________________
All the conductors in question most likely belongs to the power company and as such the NEC has no say in the clearances.
________________________________________________-

This is true however the clearances have to be adhered to since the NEC does address the point of attachment that control these clearances. It is in fact an NEC violation if this clearances are not met. The inspector is well with-in the scope of the NEC to reject installation that to not conform to the required building clearances.
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

Originally posted by david:
The inspector is well with-in the scope of the NEC to reject installation that to not conform to the required building clearances.
Click to expand...
The power company can tell the inspector to pound sand.

Would you also say that those conductors must adhere to 310.16?

[ December 04, 2005, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

question by tonype

I'm a neophyte at this, and I did not check it further since I was only at the building for the HVAC systems, but is it possible that this is 440/460-volt service? If so, what are (or were) the requirements?
Click to expand...
There was one entry in 1941 requiring a clearance of 3', however in general there was no requirement for less than 300 volts to ground until the 1977 edition.

With regards to David, I respectfully disagree also. Utility owned plant usch as this is exempt from the NEC, and unless Tony or his client own the conductors, the NEC is only fodder for discussion.

Jim T
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

The Utility companies definitely do not follow the NEC, but take a close look at the wording of

230.24 Clearances.
Service-drop conductors...

Art 100 definition of Service Drop
Service Drop. The overhead service conductors from the last pole or other aerial support to and including the splices, if any, connecting to the service-entrance conductors at the building or other structure.

With that being said, I would say that this installation would not be approved in today's inspections.
I am assuming this flat roof has an access door to the roof.
The Utility company would have them install an addition pole to keep the conductors from traveling over the roof.


In working with the Utility company in our area, I am sure they would not permit this either - they are more concerned with litigation than safety in a case such as this.

[ December 04, 2005, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: pierre ]
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

Originally posted by pierre:
The Utility companies definitely do not follow the NEC, but take a close look at the wording of

230.24 Clearances.
Service-drop conductors...

Art 100 definition of Service Drop
Service Drop. The overhead service conductors from the last pole or other aerial support to and including the splices, if any, connecting to the service-entrance conductors at the building or other structure.
Click to expand...
If the utility company and the AHJ agreed that the "Service Point" was at the pole and the contractor installed the overhead conductors from the pole to the house than yes I would agree that 230.24 would apply.

Service Point. The point of connection between the facilities of the serving utility and the premises wiring.
Click to expand...
However 240.24 can not apply to conductors owned by the utility as is quite clear in 90.2(B)(5).

If you say that the NEC clearance requirements apply to the utility owned overhead drop than the rest of the NEC would apply also.

Ampacity rating of the conductor.

The results of 220 calculations

The requirement for the conductors to be identified. 310.11
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

What does 90.2(B)(5)b mean?
Are these conductors in a easment.
I don't think the roof of a privately owned building could be in an easment.
The rest of 90.2(B)(5)b.is a bit confusing so I'm willing to listen to what it means.

[ December 04, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: russ ]
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

Russ:

The pole seen in the photo is in the driveway/parking area behind the building - several light manufacturing business are present. The pole is closer to the building than to the rear property line. I do not know if there is an easement for the pole.

There is no direct access to the roof from inside - a ladder along the outside provides it (about 12'). Maintenance are regularly up there to clear drains, maintain HVAC units, patch the roof, etc. The boiler vent pipe seen in one of the photos is only a few feet away.

Regards,
Tony
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

Service drop conductors are property of the utility.

Yet as they travel over Premises space, they will still have to comply with the same height requirements we see in the NEC, I believe that the height requirements are actually more strigent than the NEC's.

Take a look at the exceptions for 230.24. All of those exceptions will be a requirement whether the conductors are from the utility or are property of the owner.
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

Service drop conductors are property of the utility.

Yet as they travel over Premises space, they will still have to comply with the same height requirements we see in the NEC, I believe that the height requirements are actually more strigent than the NEC's.

Take a look at the exceptions for 230.24. All of those exceptions will be a requirement whether the conductors are from the utility or are property of the owner.
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

I have to point out one more time.

Originally posted by pierre:
The Utility companies definitely do not follow the NEC, but take a close look at the wording of

230.24 Clearances.
Service-drop conductors...
Click to expand...
90.2 Scope.

(B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:

(5)Installations under the exclusive control of an electric utility where such installations

a.Consist of service drops....
Click to expand...
I just do not see how his can be overlooked. :confused:
 
Re: Looking for insight on this installation

Bob
I respect your opinion or statement on this topic. Instead of saying I will respectfully disagree, I would like to come to some kind of agreement based on some facts, such as from the utility company(ies).
I bet with some effort, we can :cool: . What do you say to that?

I will contact my utility company with the photos and see what they say, why don't you try the same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top