NEC or NESC

[joesparky]

Hi, the local utility (Denver) here owns to the "point of attachment", ment to be where the overhead drop is connected to the mast conductors. My question is the 2005 NEC requires 8 ft clearance over patio roofs with less than 4/12 slope. Is this situation dictated by NEC or NESC?
Also if NEC has jurisdiction here, (and I don't understand how this ever got in), 8 ft above a 3/12 roof requires a ladder to reach the connection ( and the local utility will NOT connect to it no matter what) and this is a glaring OSHA violation. How can anyone safely connect to such a mast?
Thanks,
Joe

 

[bphgravity]

It doesn't technically matter who owns or is responsible for the service drop conductors themselves. What matters is the NEC prohibits the installation of a service mast the result in the service drop conductors violating the various clearance requirements.

It's a cause and effect relationship.

 

[kingpb]

Not sure why this is an OSHA violation. Not knowing the details of the installation, you may want to look closer at Exceptions 3 and 4. The 8ft is not intended to impede connection.

 

[iwire]

I disagree.

IMO the conductors owned by the utility are 'invisible' to the NEC and a building official can not try to enforce NEC rules against these conductors.

 

[iwire]

Here is a little back up to my postion.

4- Log # 703 NEC-P04

Final Action: Reject​

(100.Service Conductors)

​

​

_____________________________________________________________​

Submitter:​

Charles M. Trout, Maron Electric Company​

Recommendation:​

Revise the definition of Service Conductors to read:​

Service Conductors. The conductors from the service point last pole or other
aerial support to the service disconnecting means.​

Substantiation:​

The definition as written conflicts with the definition of​

service drop which includes the conductors from the last pole or other aerial
support as service conductors.​

Panel Meeting Action: Reject​

Panel Statement: ​

​

The crucial point for service conductors is the point where​

the utility company connects to the premises wiring, as defined in the phrase

?service point? in Article 00. Any conductors on the utility company side are
under the jurisdiction of the utility company (NESC), and any conductors from
that point are considered premises wiring and under the jurisdiction of the
NEC. The service point may be at the last pole and include any service drop
conductors, but the service point for an overhead service drop often is at the
weatherhead and does not include the drop conductors. This definition does not
conflict with the definition of Service Drop. It is written to include both service
drop and service lateral.​

​

​

Number Eligible to Vote: 10​

Ballot Results: ​

​

Affirmative: 0​

Comment on Affirmative:​

BECK, C.: See my Affirmative Comment on Proposal 4-3.

ROGERS, J.: The submitter is not correct in his substantiation, service
conductors could be either overhead or underground as defined in Article 00
Service Conductors are any conductors between the Service Point and the
Service Disconnect Means.​

​

​

​

 

[pete m.]

Bob, I'm not disagreeing with your opinion that the utility owned conductors are invisible to the NEC. I believe that you are 100% correct. In this situation I would think that the Utility and the AHJ would work together to achieve the minimum level of safety for clearances that would satisfy both the NEC and NESC........ but this would be in a perfect world.

Would you feel the same if someone installed a swimming pool directly below the utility owned service conductors and didn't meet the clearance requirements in 680.8? Or, how about an underground utility owned lateral that was routed directly underneath the pool?

 

[dnem]

It doesn't technically matter who owns or is responsible for the service drop conductors themselves. What matters is the NEC prohibits the installation of a service mast the result in the service drop conductors violating the various clearance requirements.

It's a cause and effect relationship.

There is a power company in my county that installs a mast and meterbase / disconnect combo on the pole by the road for every customer. . The customer or his contractor picks it up from there and runs the supply to the building. . Every now and then the utility crew has this habit of installing the 20 to 25' mast with only one strap. . We require them to come back and properly support their installation using the strapping distances shown in the NEC.

If the power company does installations covered by the NEC, they have to play by the NEC rules.

One last point.

This doesn't just fall back on the power company. . 230.26 says that the person installing the the means of attachment [insulator on the lag bolt screw] must install it in a place that provides the minimum clearances of 230.9 & 230.24 be met all points of the drop. This should have been considered by the electrician before he installed the lag bolt screw.

David

 

[jeff43222]

I recently had a similar discussion with the local chief inspector regarding an outdoor hot tub. He told me the hot tub must meet the clearances as dictated in the NEC, regardless of whose wires they were.

While I see Bob's point that utility wiring may be technically "invisible" as far as the NEC is concerned, I can understand why the inspector is enforcing the NEC when it comes to service drops. It's tough to write rules that will work near both sides of the "border" between the NESC and NEC, and I don't think the intent is to allow each side to completely ignore the other by claiming the other side's stuff is invisible. That would open up a giant loophole that would allow all sorts of dangerous installations.

 

[iwire]

Did anyone read what the code making panel said?

The crucial point for service conductors is the point where the utility company connects to the premises wiring, as defined in the phrase

?service point? in Article 100. Any conductors on the utility company side are

under the jurisdiction of the utility company (NESC), and any conductors from
that point are considered premises wiring and under the jurisdiction of the
NEC. ​

​

​

It's all about the service point, one side NEC the other NESC.

There is no middle ground except by courtesy.

As far as a hot tub / pool perhaps an inspector can prevent a new hot tub from getting a final if installed under existing power co conductors.

However if a power company swings lines over a hot tub / pool after the final the inspector has no authority to prevent those wires from being installed.


​

 

[joesparky]

The origional problem was that I installed a 9 ft mast to accommodate the NEC. It passed inspection but the utility co refused to connect because in order to connect to the service entrance conductors, they had to have a ladder on the roof (3/12) which is a OSHA violation. For over a week and numerous phone calls neither would budge. Finally the AJH allowed the point of attachment to be 5 ft. and the utility connected. Other local AJH are not so flexable.

My point is this: Why have the 8 ft clearance rule when it is not only conflicts but directly conterdicts the NESC, when it cannot be connected by Anyone with out using a ladder on a sloped roof which is clearly a OSHA violation, and puts the safety of electrican/installer, and utility serviceman at risk. Why can't the clearance rule be a reasonable 6 or 5 ft.?

If you agree, you only have until Oct 20 to express these issues to the ROC and after that we have to live with what it is for at least another 4 years.
Joe

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Joe,

If you agree, you only have until Oct 20 to express these issues to the ROC

If there isn't a proposal that addresses this issue in the ROP, you can't bring it up in the ROC. No new material can be acted on at the ROC stage of the process. Only comments on what is in the ROP.
Don

 

[joesparky]

Don,
ROC 4-39 log #2872 NEC-P04 addresses this issue but does not mention that it is an OSHA violation to have a ladder on a sloped roof. I can't reach and make a connection on a 8 ft loop without a ladder, can you?
Joe

 

[bphgravity]

The bottom line is that until I approve the instalaltion, the POCO cannot connect power. So, if the future service drop appears it will violate any of the required clearances, the job will be rejected.

 

[dnem]

Did anyone read what the code making panel said?

​

​

It's all about the service point, one side NEC the other NESC.

There is no middle ground except by courtesy.

As far as a hot tub / pool perhaps an inspector can prevent a new hot tub from getting a final if installed under existing power co conductors.

However if a power company swings lines over a hot tub / pool after the final the inspector has no authority to prevent those wires from being installed.


​

"There is no middle ground except by courtesy."
I disagree. . 230.26 says the contractor must take the wire clearance into consideration. . It doesn't matter what code the service lateral conductors themselves are under, 230.26 says your point of attachment must take into consideration the clearance of those conductors.

David

 

[steve66]

Don,
ROC 4-39 log #2872 NEC-P04 addresses this issue but does not mention that it is an OSHA violation to have a ladder on a sloped roof. I can't reach and make a connection on a 8 ft loop without a ladder, can you?
Joe

Isn't it the utilities job to make the connection? Don't they own bucket trucks? There are other ways besides ladders to get up 8'. Scaffolds, for example.

Sorry to be so harsh. I'm sure you have had enough frustration after dealing with the AHJ and the utility for weeks on end, but I don't think the 8' clearance should be eliminated.

The NEC is worried about someone walking the roof and touching the service conductors with something like a pole or other tool. If the conductors are 8' above the roof, someone really has to try hard to reach them.

If the roof has a slope of higher than 4/12, then it is unlikely anyone will be walking on it.

Who decided that the service mast should go in the middle of a slopped roof anyway? If the connection can't be safely made 8' above the roof, the mast should have gone somewhere else.


Steve

 

[jim dungar]

90.2(B)(5)(a) clearly says that a service drop is not covered by the NEC if that drop is under the exclusive control of an electric utility.

FWIW,the state of Wisconsin does not recognize NEC 90.2. They have their own section Comm 16.02(1)COVERED that says "...installations of conductors and equipment that connect to the supply of electricity". And Comm 16.02(2) NOT COVERED that only exclude utility installations "...outdoors on private property by established rights such as easements". So, in Wisconsin, utilites must follow the NEC unless they have a "legal" easement.

 

[iwire]

The bottom line is that until I approve the instalaltion, the POCO cannot connect power. So, if the future service drop appears it will violate any of the required clearances, the job will be rejected.

"There is no middle ground except by courtesy."
I disagree. . 230.26 says the contractor must take the wire clearance into consideration. . It doesn't matter what code the service lateral conductors themselves are under, 230.26 says your point of attachment must take into consideration the clearance of those conductors.

David

I have no idea how either of you get the authority to do this.

Do you also apply the NEC conductor ampacity requirements?

Why not, 240 says it applies to 'all conductors'?

The reason why you don't is simple, those conductors are not covered by the NEC.

Now if the service point was at the pole than yes, the NEC would apply.

 

[sandsnow]

Our POCO has rules to follow for overhaed line construction called General Order 95 promulgated by the State Public Utilities Commission. There are rules in there regarding clearances over pools, etc. I haven't checked in a while, but I'm pretty sure it parallels the NEC.

Bryan: I'm stunned! I thought you were not one to take the "law into their own hands" type of guy?

 

[joesparky]

Bryon Holland,
what good is a NEC code and inspector approved installation if the POCO refuses to connect to it?? Your attitude is showing.
Joe

 

[dnem]

The bottom line is that until I approve the instalaltion, the POCO cannot connect power. So, if the future service drop appears it will violate any of the required clearances, the job will be rejected.

"There is no middle ground except by courtesy."
I disagree. . 230.26 says the contractor must take the wire clearance into consideration. . It doesn't matter what code the service lateral conductors themselves are under, 230.26 says your point of attachment must take into consideration the clearance of those conductors.

David

I have no idea how either of you get the authority to do this.

Do you also apply the NEC conductor ampacity requirements?

Why not, 240 says it applies to 'all conductors'?

The reason why you don't is simple, those conductors are not covered by the NEC.

Now if the service point was at the pole than yes, the NEC would apply.

It?s not an issue of authority. . It?s an issue of doing your job correctly. . When an inspector enforces the NEC, he?s doing his job. . In whose direction will the fingers be pointing if someone gets electrocuted ? . Even if there?s 30 feet of clearance, someone could still be electrocuted if they?re holding a long conductive object. . But if the job was installed according to the code, both the contractor and the inspector would not be held responsible nor should they feel responsible.

It?s a different story if the code is knowingly violated and ignored. . If there isn?t the required clearance, there is liability setting there for as many years as the service remains there. . And as the years pass, the condition of the conductor insulation deteriorates and exposure becomes worse. . A teenage kid from a cable company could be up there 10 years from now. . I?m not taking responsibility for his safety.

230.26 Point of Attachment. . The point of attachment of the service-drop conductors to a building or other structure shall provide the minimum clearances as specified in 230.9 and 230.24. . In no case shall this point of attachment be less than 3.0 m (10 ft) above finished grade.

Now tell me why I would want to take on the responsibility of ignoring this requirement. . If I ignore this during inspection, I am partly responsible for any bad outcome.

David