ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
UL 508A SPACING
by ale348 - 03/29/24 01:09 AM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (ale348), 302 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
#112117 03/16/01 01:11 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,682
Likes: 3
Admin Offline OP
Administrator
Member
[Linked Image]
City of Pittsburgh public swimming pool. The security camera cable run above the swimming pool appears to be in violation of NEC section 680.8....."Overhead Conductor Clearances". According to the 1999 NEC Code
Handbook (McGraw-Hill), the exceptions are only for Utility Company lines provided the clearance dimensions in Table 680.8 are observed.

Frank Cinker
Pittsburgh, PA

#112118 03/18/01 09:51 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
By the 1999 NEC,there's an exception for CATV coaxial cables to have a clearance of 10 feet if they comply with Art. 820. If this is a security camera, it is CCTV, and doesn't comply, but I can't see that there would be a difference in the safety aspect. What do you think?
Realistically, the installer should have carried something larger than an 8' ladder.

#112119 03/18/01 01:35 PM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 84
C
Member
electure,

I feel there would not be a difference in the safety aspect. However, as you stated, it does not compy with NEC.

Frank (cinkerf)


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5