Hey guys is there anyway around putting the bubble covers on the temperary poles. In the code section for temp. services I see nothing just seems to be a big expense and they break them everytime.Something about attended and un-attended comes to mind but can`t put my finger on it.Say if they unplugg after each use you can use the weather covers if they leave in for extended periods of time water proof cover.I know this would be hard to police but no one here leaves a drop cord over night.....unless you plan on going to supply house and buy a new one. Penny for your thoughts.Thanks
When I had a similar situation, I didn't use any kind of weatherproof cover; rather, I got a large can, and mounted several receptacles in it, using standard boxes and covers. I also cut, and bushed, some 2" holes in the bottom edge for cord access.
In short, I made a very large "in use cover." The best part of this approach was that there was plenty of room, for even the largest plugs- and enough receptacles for every cord!
Re: TEMP POLE AND COVER#99007 07/06/0611:44 AM07/06/0611:44 AM
Arlington is making some nicer looking receptacle/cover combos but they are recessed in the wall so it is probably not going to help much in retro work. I do like Reno's solution for the power pole. That is similar to what they do here for the fair grounds.
Re: TEMP POLE AND COVER#99008 07/06/0601:28 PM07/06/0601:28 PM
Our guy's will allow snap type wp covers if there is an angled roof of sorts built over the outlets. The roof needs to extend out past the outlets enough to protect them from rainfall. It also needs to have at minimum roofing paper to seal the joints, but if there is shingles on it, then even better.
Re: TEMP POLE AND COVER#99009 07/06/0611:04 PM07/06/0611:04 PM
Yes, Move to Indiana. Indiana modified the rule to go back to attended or unattended cords, will determine what kind of cover is needed. I submitted a proposal to exempt temporary services from the in-use cover requirement but, it was rejected for the 2005. I've tryed again but, don't know what they have decided yet. Haven't had a chance to read the proposals. Alan--
Alan-- If it was easy, anyone could do it.
Re: TEMP POLE AND COVER#99012 07/07/0610:13 PM07/07/0610:13 PM
Alan- One could argue that for a temporary service used for construction is a classic place where you need an "in use" cover because that is a place where a cord would be left plugeed in and unattended. I see it all the time for new construction involving a sump pump or furnace. We would not want any triping of these circuit that might trip due to moisture of watere getting into the receptacle. IMHO
Re: TEMP POLE AND COVER#99013 07/07/0611:06 PM07/07/0611:06 PM
I agree the concept is valid but in practice it is ridiculous. Most "in use" covers I have seen would not last a week at a construction site. They would be broken. I still think Reno has the best idea. Give them a tough box that they can't break.
I also wonder why the receptacle to plug cap connection has to be so dry when the other end of that extension cord is sitting on the ground in the rain. It even gets sillier when you get to lighting. A PAR 38 socket can be pointed up aimed into the trees, collecting water and it doesn't even have to be GFCI protected if it is not cord and plug connected. Why is it so hard to understand anything outside is a "wet" location whether we want to admit it or not?
Re: TEMP POLE AND COVER#99014 07/09/0612:24 PM07/09/0612:24 PM