Jurisdictional code conflict

[gschuman]

The problem: Overhead service drop to a residence with a clearance of 14+ feet above swimming pool. The utility company is regulated by state rules authorizing the clearance above pool to be greater than 12'. The NEC (1999) is now 22.5' and that is what the local AHJ is calling for. BUT the local AHJ (nor the NEC) has the jurisdiction over the utility lines.

Question: Who decides on what clearance is allowed?

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Jurisdictional code conflict

When I have had issues with the POCO that they didn't want to address, I ask for the name of the individual who thinks that the code violation is not a porblem so that I can put it on the recored in the city files.

This usually makes them come around.

I once had service cables that were buried about 6" deep in the dirt, and this was the approach I used. It worked for me, maybe it will work for you.

 

[charlie]

Re: Jurisdictional code conflict

Warning, I am shooting from the lip, I do not have my Code books with me.

The 22.5 ft. is required for a triplexed service drop and 23 ft. is required for an open wire service drop. The NESC applies to this situation, assuming the electric utility owns the service drop.

Now, when was the pool installed? I believe the pool was probably installed after the service drop was installed since most pools are installed after the home takes electric service. If that is the case, the AHJ is the local inspector who signed off on the pool installation.

 

[gschuman]

Re: Jurisdictional code conflict

Now, when was the pool installed? I believe the pool was probably installed after the service drop was installed since most pools are installed after the home takes electric service. If that is the case, the AHJ is the local inspector who signed off on the pool installation.[QUOTE

... There was a pool previously, but it was demo'd and replaced with a new one. Both inground gunite construction.

The issue is that two different jurisdictions are in conflict. The state (CA) regulates the power utility (Edison) using General Orders 95 for overhead service drops. According to this these rules the clearance is only 12'. The NEC doesn't correspond on the clearance- but it doesn't have the jurisdiction over the utility.

So then- who has the final say on this particular type of conflict? Should we always defer to the stricter rule and impose on the property owner?

 

[pierre]

Re: Jurisdictional code conflict

680.8 is clear in the wording of 'SERVICE DROP CONDUCTORS and OPEN OVERHEAD WIRING'...

I am not an inspector... yet... , but as an inspector, I would not put my signature to this.
Jeez - 12 feet, would anyone feel comfortable with that over a pool?

Pierre

 

[hurk27]

Re: Jurisdictional code conflict

I think in a court of law, safety has the main say in this. What would happen if a 12 year old boy was cleaning the pool with a metal handle skim net. these poles are about 12' to 15' long and could easily touch the drop and if there is a bare spot in the wire and he get's killed who do you think will win in court. sometimes going by just what the state allows isen't enough when we know that the NTSC and the NEC requires 22.5' I wouldn't want that on my conscience or be in that court room. Sometimes when codes are passed or too old we still have the obligation to provide a safety net when we know what's right.

 

[gschuman]

Re: Jurisdictional code conflict

I agree with the safety aspect, too. But do we then tell the property owner that they must comply with a new code requirment from the NEC standpoint- even though the established rules that are in force allow a lower height. (With that being said- the 2002 NEC handbook states that the clearance requirement was changed to comply with the NESC which the utility companies use- or supposed to use.)

 

[hurk27]

Re: Jurisdictional code conflict

I think you hit it on the head with this:

or supposed to use

This would be the clincher in a court room.

Are you with the Utility?
I know around here our Utility would raise the drop without a question when it comes to safety.
and I have never seen them back charge the home owner. But that might be somthing in the state IURC laws?

 

[hurk27]

Re: Jurisdictional code conflict

I have to take some of that back as if the Utility cannot get the clearance over the pool then the home owner would have to foot the bill for a electrician to ether move the service or provide a taller riser pipe which would have to be guyed off.

 

[gschuman]

Re: Jurisdictional code conflict

I'm not with the local utility- I'm a contractor working for the property owner. The owner was given a permit to build the pool (or actually replace the one that was there). The city even gave him a handout that stipulated the height of the utility line to be like 14-18' (the old code). The inspector came out and pitched a fit when he saw the drop. Of course- they bring it up after the gunite was installed!

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I'll get paid to move the drop anyways...

 

[charlie]

Re: Jurisdictional code conflict

You are right, California has a different Code than the NESC. The service drop is owned by the electric utility so they are required to follow the laws that apply to them. In this case, since the pool is being replaced/upgraded, the new pool would be required to meet the current CA General Orders 95 Code (at least that is the way it works here). If the drop is too low, the customer would be required to pay for relocating it since he caused the problem (consider it part of the cost of the pool).