service conductor roof clearance

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coppersmith

Coppersmith

Senior Member
Location
Tampa, FL, USA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
We are replacing an existing customer pole and service equipment outside a mobile home. The existing situation is depicted in the graphic below. The service conductors are currently hanging four feet above the roof of the porch which is corrugated sheet metal and not able to support the weigh of someone walking on it. I'm concerned that 230.24(A) may apply to the replacement conductors.

Does it apply if the roof is non-walkable?
 

Attachments

  • clearance.jpg
    clearance.jpg
    16 KB · Views: 4
I don't really know and would check with the inspectors.

I have gotten by the same situation because of the slope of the roof. If it's a least 4" rise for a 12" run it allowable to reduce clearance (see exceptions). That's not much of a slope.

Just because you or myself wouldn't walk on it doesn't mean that no one will try.
 
There is one other thing. The porch and roof were probably built after the power lines were run. They were probably built without a permit. They probably don't conform to local codes for mobile homes.

There is a good chance that if the roof is not safe to walk on that they would have to remove it.

In this county they have all kinds of rules about what is allowed to be built onto a mobile home..
 
I'm thinking the service point is the customer pole. The line strung from the POCO pole to the customer pole is utility owned. Does 230.24(A) apply? Does this come under the utility code instead?
 
growler said:
There is one other thing. The porch and roof were probably built after the power lines were run. They were probably built without a permit. They probably don't conform to local codes for mobile homes.

There is a good chance that if the roof is not safe to walk on that they would have to remove it.

In this county they have all kinds of rules about what is allowed to be built onto a mobile home..
Click to expand...

You a likely correct that it was built unpermitted, however, I don't think the cover over the porch being walkable is a requirement. I don't know the building code that well. It may not be defined as a "roof". There are lots of structures around here with flimsy corrugated covers/roofs. Carports, sheds, pool cages. At least a few must have been permitted. Many are visible from the road.
 
Coppersmith said:
I'm thinking the service point is the customer pole. The line strung from the POCO pole to the customer pole is utility owned. Does 230.24(A) apply? Does this come under the utility code instead?
Click to expand...

If the conductors are under control of the utility then NEC does not apply. The utility will have their own rules about clearances but I've known the lineman on site to use his judgment in favour of reconnecting the customer's power.
 
ActionDave said:
If the conductors are under control of the utility then NEC does not apply. The utility will have their own rules about clearances but I've known the lineman on site to use his judgment in favour of reconnecting the customer's power.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. The service conductors from the utility pole with the tranny to the structure are under the NEC as far as clearances above driveways/roads and roofs. A sparky has to make sure the point of attachment, mast height, and such are correct so when the POCO runs their stuff, the NEC is satisfied.

The POCO could have stricter requirements for clearance, but not less.
 
jumper said:
I beg to differ. The service conductors from the utility pole with the tranny to the structure are under the NEC as far as clearances above driveways/roads and roofs. A sparky has to make sure the point of attachment, mast height, and such are correct so when the POCO runs their stuff, the NEC is satisfied.

The POCO could have stricter requirements for clearance, but not less.
Click to expand...
The pictures in the handbook make it look that way but the definition of service point says otherwise.
 
ActionDave said:
If the conductors are under control of the utility then NEC does not apply. The utility will have their own rules about clearances but I've known the lineman on site to use his judgment in favour of reconnecting the customer's power.
Click to expand...

jumper said:
I beg to differ. The service conductors from the utility pole with the tranny to the structure are under the NEC as far as clearances above driveways/roads and roofs. A sparky has to make sure the point of attachment, mast height, and such are correct so when the POCO runs their stuff, the NEC is satisfied.

The POCO could have stricter requirements for clearance, but not less.
Click to expand...

I think neither of you need to take "Action" and "Jumper to any conclusions!:D
 
jumper said:
I beg to differ. The service conductors from the utility pole with the tranny to the structure are under the NEC as far as clearances above driveways/roads and roofs. A sparky has to make sure the point of attachment, mast height, and such are correct so when the POCO runs their stuff, the NEC is satisfied.

The POCO could have stricter requirements for clearance, but not less.
Click to expand...
I only see it that way if the sparky is responsible for placing the point of attachment. Many instances like OP has posted the POCO sets the pole, places the attachment point and attaches the drop. The sparky starts out on load side of meter or even a disconnect below the meter and had nothing to do with everything ahead of that point.

If homeowner comes in later and adds a porch, carport, etc. then neither EC or POCO have violated anything. POCO could if they want to threaten them to pay to change something or they will discontinue service - but that just doesn't seem to happen in these kind of situations.

An IE may not like it but usually has little he can do about it. A HI can note that it is a potential problem but has no authority to force a change either. This leaves it on the POCO. Liability is their motivation to do anything about it. 120 volts to ground and "covered" ungrounded conductors isn't too high of a risk, 2400-7200 to ground uncovered at even 10 feet of clearance is enough risk that they likely will do something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top