NEC 230.24(A) Service Conductor Clearance From "Roof"

[kaptnkrnx]

I am unclear about the definition of "roof" within 230.24(A). The code states (among other things) that there must be at least 8' clearance between the conductor and the roof if the roof slope is less than 4"/12". Does this 8' clearance include the patio cover attached to the back of the home? What if the patio cover is a plywood deck (solid "roof") vs. a patio cover that is free standing with wood slats or perhaps a pergola. So does "roof" just mean the house roof or any adjacent structures? Any input would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance,
Jeff

 

[RUWired]

The 8' clearance applies to all roofs under the service conductors, attached or not.

 

[iwire]

If we are talking about power company wiring from pole to house the NEC does not apply. See 90.2(B)

 

[macmikeman]

If we are talking about power company wiring from pole to house the NEC does not apply. See 90.2(B)

Respectfully dissagree,- 680.8(A) covers poco drops and its in the NEC.

 

[iwire]

Respectfully dissagree,- 680.8(A) covers poco drops and its in the NEC.

What part of 90.2(B)(5)(a) are you choosing to ignore?

 

[Cavie]

POCO drops are covered in the NEC and must meet the clearences listed. Yes the porch roofs and pool cages are also covered.

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

Now I'm confused. 230.24 specifically uses the term "service Drop". 90.2 (B) (5) seems to exclude service drops

 

[iwire]

Now I'm confused. 230.24 specifically uses the term "service Drop". 90.2 (B) (5) seems to exclude service drops

If the service point happens to be at the pole instead of the weather head and the customer owns and controls those conductors than 230.24 would apply.

 

[iwire]

POCO drops are covered in the NEC and must meet the clearences listed. Yes the porch roofs and pool cages are also covered.

Again, have you looked at 90.2(B)?

Did they just have some extra ink to use up or does it actually mean what it clearly and in no uncertain terms says?

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

If the service point happens to be at the pole instead of the weather head and the customer owns and controls those conductors than 230.24 would apply.

Wow....and all these years I thought when the POCO brought their drop to the weatherhead I had to adhere to 230.24. I have a feeling there are a lot of local ammendments that override 90.2(B)(5)(a).

 

[iwire]

Here are some statments from Mike

Part II. Overhead Service-Drop Conductors

Author?s Comment: Overhead service-drop conductors installed by the electric utility must be in accordance with the National Electric Safety Code (NESC), not the NEC [90.2(B)(5)], but overhead service conductors not under the exclusive control of the electric utility must be installed in accordance with the NEC.

http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/NEC-HTML/HTML/Article230-Services~20020219.htm

680.8 Overhead Conductor Clearances.

(A) Pools, spas, hot tubs, diving structures, observation stands, towers or platforms shall not be placed under or within 10 ft of service drop conductors or open overhead wiring.

(B) Communications Systems. Communications cables, such as telephone, radio and CATV cables within the scope of Articles 800 through 820 shall be located no less than 10 ft from the water?s edge of swimming and wading pools, diving structures, observation stands, towers or platforms. Figure 680-1 un680-01 680-08B.cdr Graphics are not included in this newsletter.

Author?s Comment: This rule does not prohibit a utility-owned communications system from installing their overhead cable over a pool [90.2(B)(4)], but it does prohibit a pool from being installed under an existing communications utility overhead supply.

http://www.mikeholt.com/mojonewsarchive/NEC-HTML/HTML/SwimmingPoolInstallations~20021227.htm

 

[iwire]

Wow....and all these years I thought when the POCO brought their drop to the weatherhead I had to adhere to 230.24. I have a feeling there are a lot of local ammendments that override 90.2(B)(5)(a).

I doubt there are amendments as often as inspectors just go ahead and enforce what they feel is correct.

The NESC (the typical code of the utility) also has clearance requirements.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

In discussions with the CMPs and a Utility person who is also a CMP of the NEC, there was comment about 230.24. It was said, this is where the NEC does ovelap NESC requirements, and that the installer does have to adhere to the requirements when the drop is installed to a building and crosses over private property.

230.24. Clearances.
Service-drop conductors shall not be readily accessible and shall comply with 230.24(A) through (D) for services not over 600 volts, nominal.

I say the installer does have to follow these minimum height requirements, on private property.

In our jurisdiction, the POCO has rules that are more stringent than the NEC, and enforce them even though the NESC supposedly does not have perview.

 

[iwire]

In discussions with the CMPs and a Utility person who is also a CMP of the NEC, there was comment about 230.24. It was said, this is where the NEC does overlap NESC requirements, and that the installer does have to adhere to the requirements when the drop is installed to a building and crosses over private property.

If the conductors are under the control of the utility the utility is the installer and the NEC does not apply. Period.

230.24. Clearances.
Service-drop conductors shall not be readily accessible and shall comply with 230.24(A) through (D) for services not over 600 volts, nominal.

I say the installer does have to follow these minimum height requirements, on private property.

In our jurisdiction, the POCO has rules that are more stringent than the NEC, and enforce them even though the NESC supposedly does not have perview.

The codes cannot overlap and inspectors cannot (or should not) pick and choose how to apply them.

If you say 230.24 applies to utility controlled conductors then 310.16 would also apply to those conductors.

I will ask again, what part of 90.2(B) is unclear or can be ignored?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

If the conductors are under the control of the utility the utility is the installer and the NEC does not apply. Period.



The codes cannot overlap and inspectors cannot (or should not) pick and choose how to apply them.

If you say 230.24 applies to utility controlled conductors then 310.16 would also apply to those conductors.

I will ask again, what part of 90.2(B) is unclear or can be ignored?

As I mentioned, I was in a meeting with the NEC and NESC members. This was discussed and I know exactly what I heard.
You are certainly allowed your opinion here, as is anyone else. I will stand fast on this, until the task committee that has been put together comes back with information that may or may not change what was discussed that day.


As in any jurisdiction, an installer always has the right to dispute a ruling and go through due process. If the due process were to come to any finding, I am always happy to let someone else take responsibility and sign off on an installation.
Whether it would be you or me or anyone else, we stick to our thoughts until proven otherwise.

 

[Cavie]

The handbook has a couple of paragraphs on this issue. Please do no reply with " The hand book is not a legal document" . I'm tired of hearing that. All the inspectors I know go to it regularly for clarification.

 

[pete m.]

As I mentioned, I was in a meeting with the NEC and NESC members. This was discussed and I know exactly what I heard.

Not trying to be argumentative.... perhaps I'm a bit confused. I am only given authority to enforce the codes and standards adopted by the State of Ohio. In the area that I inspect the POCO defines the point of delivery for an overhead service at the splice point at the weather-head.

That being said, 90.2(B)(5) removes my authority to inspect what is under the exclusive control of the utility. Until such time as the CMP's change the verbiage to add this to my responsibilities I wouldn't have a "leg to stand on" if I were to defect a job for the utility owned service drop clearance.

What code section could I cite to defect an installation of utility owned service conductors?

Pete

 

[iwire]

As I mentioned, I was in a meeting with the NEC and NESC members. This was discussed and I know exactly what I heard.

I had no doubt you where being truthful but the fact remains their statement does not agree with the words contained in the NEC.

You are certainly allowed your opinion here, as is anyone else. I will stand fast on this, until the task committee that has been put together comes back with information that may or may not change what was discussed that day.

Can I ask you what you believe the words in 90.2(5)(B)(5)(a) are telling us?






I believe this from the IAEI sums it as clearly as can be.

Whether it would be you or me or anyone else, we stick to our thoughts until proven otherwise.

Would you accept the IAEIs take on things?

Here is a nice article about it.

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/?p=4329





And here is something from Mike Holt in EC&M Feb 2009

If overhead service conductors are not under the exclusive control of the electric utility [90.2(B)(5)] but are located above pools, outdoor spas, outdoor hot tubs, diving structures, observation stands, towers, or platforms, then install them per the clearance requirements of 680.8.

http://ecmweb.com/nec/conductors_supply_requirements_0201/index1.html

 

[iwire]

Please do no reply with " The hand book is not a legal document" . I'm tired of hearing that.

That makes us even, I get tired of people using it as Gospel.

 

[jaylectricity]

I always felt that the POCO would either install, or tell me where to install the point of attachment and if I did what they asked, I was not responsible for whether or not the tri-plex was the proper height clearance. However, that didn't give me license to install my riser, and connect to that tri-plex in such a way that would violate code. Example: Installing the wiring so that the feeders so that they were within grasp from an open window or deck.