Service drop/SEC clearances to a deck

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tonype

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
This one is unique for me. POCO requires 3 feet of clearance from a deck. What is typically the references point? If it is from the top of the guardrail, then there is 3 feet. If it is from the floor, then no - this one concerns me because of an arm that can reach through. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
 

Attachments

  • DSCF4582_edited-1.jpg
    DSCF4582_edited-1.jpg
    136.8 KB · Views: 1
POCO can set any rule they want, but I'd say the NEC article that would be cited for rejection of this is 230.9(A). I'd also say one must read between the lines to some extent at what the intentions of 230.9(A) are to be able to cite it, as the installation in the picture is not specifically mentioned, but the idea that one can reach the open conductors from an occupant access area is kind of the whole gist of 230.9
 
Based on that reasoning, putting a solid plywood or clear plastic panel running three feet in both directions from the corner would remove the risk. But might not placate inspectors. :(
 
tonype said:
This one is unique for me. POCO requires 3 feet of clearance from a deck. What is typically the references point? If it is from the top of the guardrail, then there is 3 feet. If it is from the floor, then no - this one concerns me because of an arm that can reach through. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
Well, why is it connected if they don't like it? Did you redo the service, although it doesn't look new. Is it high enough off the ground to lower it if you had to? Actually on second look is does look new because of the new bug after the crimped one. Around here if there is a question like that we call the POCO beforehand for a spot.
 
Last edited:
On another note, I've always felt that it is a violation if I was to leave the conductor between POCO's crimp and the new bugs (as shown in the picture) when upsizing a service, as the existing short piece of conductor is part of the old SEU and now undersized for the new service.
 
mjf said:
On another note, I've always felt that it is a violation if I was to leave the conductor between POCO's crimp and the new bugs (as shown in the picture) when upsizing a service, as the existing short piece of conductor is part of the old SEU and now undersized for the new service.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. I leave them if I don't feel I can reach them safely, looks like here he could have reached them. To the other posters point around here I have never heard of the POCO making someone change an existing service for a violation, only if you are upgrading. I have seen many old services that are to low or had some other violation. Be a lot of work for us if they started doing that.:)
 
GerryB said:
That's a good point. I leave them if I don't feel I can reach them safely, looks like here he could have reached them. To the other posters point around here I have never heard of the POCO making someone change an existing service for a violation, only if you are upgrading. I have seen many old services that are to low or had some other violation. Be a lot of work for us if they started doing that.:)
Click to expand...
Typically the only time a local AHJ would even considered making someone change something that is "existing" and previously inspected and passed would be if the condition poses an immediate safety risk and then they can mandate a change under their most stringent safety laws in most jurisdictions. However it rarely happens due to the "always behind on inspections" situation.

Section 230.9(A) is fairly clear....are the clearance in this example 3' from the deck...no, these conductors are not that. However, if the inspection was done and previously accepted then chances are they would leave it as they just don't have the resources.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Typically the only time a local AHJ would even considered making someone change something that is "existing" and previously inspected and passed would be if the condition poses an immediate safety risk and then they can mandate a change under their most stringent safety laws in most jurisdictions. However it rarely happens due to the "always behind on inspections" situation.

Section 230.9(A) is fairly clear....are the clearance in this example 3' from the deck...no, these conductors are not that. However, if the inspection was done and previously accepted then chances are they would leave it as they just don't have the resources.
Click to expand...

Because of the style of trim on the upper roof matches the period of what seems to be asbestos siding the deck appears to been built many years ago. Although the original down spot is the round style. Most of the violations I see of this sort are done when something like a deck is built sometime after a service is approved and energized by a utility.
I do not think it would be un- common for clearance violations to be addressed at a service re-inspection, a tampering inspection, or a service repair or up- grade.
 
Noticed a couple of things....looks like an upgrade or repair since the riser wires are bigger and look new. The weird thing is the bare neutral going into the weather head. Usually insulated on the services I've looked at. If it was upgraded, as a POCO, we would have required it to be moved. To us, it's the same as clearance from an open-able window. We figure you should not be able to reach it. I'm guessing it was done without notifying the POCO. I doubt they would have left the chunk of smaller wire past the Insulinks. The "bugs" as you call 'em don't look like utility connectors, either. But I only know west coast stuff...
 
meternerd said:
Noticed a couple of things....looks like an upgrade or repair since the riser wires are bigger and look new. The weird thing is the bare neutral going into the weather head. Usually insulated on the services I've looked at. If it was upgraded, as a POCO, we would have required it to be moved. To us, it's the same as clearance from an open-able window. We figure you should not be able to reach it. I'm guessing it was done without notifying the POCO. I doubt they would have left the chunk of smaller wire past the Insulinks. The "bugs" as you call 'em don't look like utility connectors, either. But I only know west coast stuff...
Click to expand...
Possibly they ran SE inside the pipe and just twisted and brought out the concentric neutral strands through the weatherhead?
 
230.9(A) applies to open conductors without an overall outer jacket.
Do these conductors not have an outer jacket?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top