Please help! Couplings in a service mast

Status
Not open for further replies.
JODell said:
you guys are showing me poco sketches from your areas.
they don't apply here, as GPC has no such wording in their blue book which is what we go by. They hooked us up...no prob.
I still have seen only one reply that gave any kind of a code reference, and I greatly appreciate that one. that's what I was looking for, not opinions and design sketches from 1000 miles away.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should try actually reading the GPC Blue Book instead of spouting off.

From GPC's Blue Book section 6.A.3:

"At the point that the service mast conduit passes upward through a roof overhang, at its soffit or through any enclosed fascia area, the service mast conduit shall be one continuous section, with no conduit couplings. All couplings used below the roof overhang or fascia shall be visible in the service mast conduit. No conduit coupling shall be a part of the service mast conduit at any point above the roofline of the building."

add: in case you are having difficulty quoting from a book you haven't thoroughly read:
https://customerservice.southerncompany.com/PDF/BlueBook.pdf
 
Last edited:
cowboyjwc said:
Just because they hooked it up, doesn't mean it's right. Sounds like two people made a mistake.
Click to expand...
It's the POCO rules so they can make special waivers as they see fit.

The inspector was following the POCO rules. No mistake there.

JODell broke the POCO rules: Oops. Vice president JODell was able to plead his case to the POCO and got the POCO to wave the rule because of the way the drop was attached: Whew! Lucky for him.:grin:
 
mivey said:
Maybe you should try actually reading the GPC Blue Book instead of spouting off.
Click to expand...

Yes it's better to have no information than to have erroneous information floating around in the brain. If you have incorrect information you will think you know what you are doing and keep doing it that way.

The problem is that if the inspector misses something or the power company hooks it up anyway then contractors begin to think what they are doing is correct when in reality it's just a mistake that hasn't been caught.
 
Humm,..,..let's recap.. Inspector turned it down; you (apparently) didn't change it as you could not find it a violation of NEC or GPC rules, but mivey quotes it from the blue book; GPC connected it......
somewhere in the future, tree falls, mast snaps, shorts, resulting in a fire.
In court proceedings testimony shows it failed inspection and was a violation of GPC regualtions. Will we still count this as a "win for you ?
 
growler said:
Yes it's better to have no information than to have erroneous information floating around in the brain. If you have incorrect information you will think you know what you are doing and keep doing it that way.

The problem is that if the inspector misses something or the power company hooks it up anyway then contractors begin to think what they are doing is correct when in reality it's just a mistake that hasn't been caught.
Click to expand...
In all honesty, I would have to see the mast. If the coupling is really above the load point, I do not see it as an issue.

I would be curious as to why the coupling was needed in the first place if the attachment point was below the coupling. Must be a tight clearance.:cool:

Just from the information given, it sounds more like the attachment point was lowered so the service could be approved, but a picture or more info would make it clearer.
 
augie47 said:
Humm,..,..let's recap.. Inspector turned it down; you (apparently) didn't change it as you could not find it a violation of NEC or GPC rules, but mivey quotes it from the blue book; GPC connected it......
somewhere in the future, tree falls, mast snaps, shorts, resulting in a fire.
In court proceedings testimony shows it failed inspection and was a violation of GPC regualtions. Will we still count this as a "win for you ?
Click to expand...
I did not think about the scenario where the attachment point fails and the top of the mast takes the load and potentially snaps. Maybe I'll retract my previous statement as that could be an issue.
 
mivey said:
It's the POCO rules so they can make special waivers as they see fit.

The inspector was following the POCO rules. No mistake there.

JODell broke the POCO rules: Oops. Vice president JODell was able to plead his case to the POCO and got the POCO to wave the rule because of the way the drop was attached: Whew! Lucky for him.:grin:
Click to expand...

What I really meant was the inspector was right. The guy who put in the coupling what wrong and the guy who hooked it up was wrong. And yes the POCO can waive the rules if they wish, but that's a bad habit to get into.
 
cowboyjwc said:
What I really meant was the inspector was right. The guy who put in the coupling what wrong and the guy who hooked it up was wrong. And yes the POCO can waive the rules if they wish, but that's a bad habit to get into.
Click to expand...
I knew you meant JODell and the GPC service tech. I just threw the thing about the inspector as a jab at JODell (was that wrong?:grin:).

Augie made a good point about a tree/limb.
 
mivey said:
I knew you meant JODell and the GPC service tech. I just threw the thing about the inspector as a jab at JODell (was that wrong?:grin:).

Augie made a good point about a tree/limb.
Click to expand...

I would think that Gus has the best point. The weight of the conductors from the POCO is usually fairly minimal.

And no it wasn't wrong I've jabbed and been jabbed my self. : )
 
mivey said:
In all honesty, I would have to see the mast. If the coupling is really above the load point, I do not see it as an issue.
Click to expand...

It's probably safe enough and will never casue any problems but the fact remains that it is against the rules which means that if another electrician is reading this and does the same thing he could easily run into the same problem and need special permission to leave the coupling above the roof line when it would be a lot easier just to put the coupling on the other end of the conduit in the first place. I wonder how much time was lost taking care of this little situation.

I think I know why they did it this way, they didn't have a threader or a threadless coupling. You don't need threads for the weather head so they put it on top.
 
growler said:
I think I know why they did it this way, they didn't have a threader or a threadless coupling. You don't need threads for the weather head so they put it on top.
Click to expand...
You are probably correct, but it is a poor excuse. With 30? years experience, JODell should know better.
 
Most any community enforcing most any code or law will have a provision written that is similar to this logic: "The AHJ having reviewed and approved an installation shall not relieve the applicant of the responsibility for compliance." When you get to the "hot seat" in court, this provision usually appears with the full force of law behind it. :)
 
cowboyjwc said:
1829, I believe.

I'm writing a book on the old west right now. Mostly trying to dispell myths and find odd facts, basically setting the record straight.
Click to expand...
Neat. I think I would be in for a lot of surprises as I have watched too many westerns.
 
We won

We won

WE WON !!
THE CHIEF INSPECTOR SIGNED US OFF BECAUSE THE 1ST GUY COULDN'T COME UP WITH A "CLEAR AND MEANINGFUL REFERENCE" THAT SAID WE WERE WRONG. As a side note, my guy who did it has very little rear end left in his jeans this morning.
Thanks to everyone who responded, I may not always like what I hear but it is invaluable to have input from so many experienced people. i think we will be bringing lots of issues here for input and discussion.
 
JODell said:
Thanks to everyone who responded, I may not always like what I hear but it is invaluable to have input from so many experienced people. i think we will be bringing lots of issues here for input and discussion.
Click to expand...
Good. We love to have fresh input and we all have more to learn. Welcome, and thanks for joining us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top