# Drip loop? **URL:** \ **Category:** Electrical Inspections\ **Created:** [August 15, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789 "2010-08-15T16:14:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sshockley](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/internachi/user_avatar/forum.nachi.org/sshockley/32/1321_2.png) [@sshockley](https://forum.nachi.org/u/sshockley)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 4:14pm UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/1 "2010-08-15T16:14:41Z")
This may sound like a stupid question, but shouldn’t there be more of an actual loop here for the service entry? Also, I’ve not done many inspections, but this is the second one I’ve had where the service entry is located at the top of roof and not on a mast extended above the roof by 18". Shouldn’t this be written up as an electrical issue in need of repair? Regards, Steve :shock: ![blackwelld-081410 467.jpg](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/internachi/original/3X/9/b/9bb299fffc666d49c177aa879e6f96f332f93a1e.jpeg) ---
**Author:** ![rmeier2](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/internachi/user_avatar/forum.nachi.org/rmeier2/32/59909_2.png) [@rmeier2](https://forum.nachi.org/u/rmeier2)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 4:25pm UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/2 "2010-08-15T16:25:14Z")
For SE Cable, the point of attachment is required to be below the top of the service head. Also a drip loop is required. It does not need to exceed the roof by 18" for the installation in the photo. Here’s the applicable NEC requirement: > [@](#): > > 230.54 Overhead Service Locations. > (A) Service Head. Service raceways shall be equipped with a service head at the point of connection to service-drop conductors. The service head shall comply with the requirement for fittings in 314.15. > (B) Service Cable Equipped with Service Head or Gooseneck. Service cables shall be equipped with a service head. The service head shall comply with the requirement for fittings in 314.15. > Exception: Type SE cable shall be permitted to be formed in a gooseneck and taped with a self-sealing weather-resistant thermoplastic. > **(C) Service Heads and Goosenecks Above Service-Drop Attachment. Service heads and goosenecks in service-entrance cables shall be located above the point of attachment of the service-drop conductors to the building or other structure.** > Exception: Where it is impracticable to locate the service head or gooseneck above the point of attachment, the service head or gooseneck location shall be permitted not farther than 600 mm (24 in.) from the point of attachment. > (D) Secured. Service cables shall be held securely in place. > (E) Separately Bushed Openings. Service heads shall have conductors of different potential brought out through separately bushed openings. > Exception: For jacketed multiconductor service cable without splice. > **(F) Drip Loops. Drip loops shall be formed on individual conductors. To prevent the entrance of moisture, service-entrance conductors shall be connected to the service-drop conductors either (1) below the level of the service head or (2) below the level of the termination of the service-entrance cable sheath**. ---
**Author:** ![sshockley](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/internachi/user_avatar/forum.nachi.org/sshockley/32/1321_2.png) [@sshockley](https://forum.nachi.org/u/sshockley)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/3 "2010-08-15T17:08:51Z")
Thanks Robert. Since I’m still green to this business, to make sure I understand your response correctly: 1 - The splices to the service entrance conductors in my photo are not to NEC requirements because they are at or above the mast height. 2 - It is acceptable for the mast be mounted to the end of the house as it is in the photo. 3 - The lack of a drip loop in the picture does not meet NEC requirements. Therefore, I should identify this as in need of repair and defer to a licensed electrician. Please let me know if I’ve misinterpreted anything. Regards, Steve ---
**Author:** ![rmeier2](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/internachi/user_avatar/forum.nachi.org/rmeier2/32/59909_2.png) [@rmeier2](https://forum.nachi.org/u/rmeier2)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/4 "2010-08-15T17:34:55Z")
> [@sshockley](#): > > Thanks Robert. Since I’m still green to this business, to make sure I understand your response correctly: > > 1 - The splices to the service entrance conductors in my photo are not to NEC requirements because they are at or above the mast height. > > The splice point for an overhead service is usually where the utility requirements begin and the NEC requirements end. Since this is SE cable there is no real mast. > > 2 - It is acceptable for the mast be mounted to the end of the house as it is in the photo. > > The weather-head is different from a mast. The weather-head for SE Cable must be above the point of attachment of the service drop which in this case it is not. > > 3 - The lack of a drip loop in the picture does not meet NEC requirements. > > Yes. > > Therefore, I should identify this as in need of repair and defer to a licensed electrician. > > Please let me know if I’ve misinterpreted anything. > > Regards, > > Steve I’ve responded within your quote in red. ---
**Author:** ![sshockley](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/internachi/user_avatar/forum.nachi.org/sshockley/32/1321_2.png) [@sshockley](https://forum.nachi.org/u/sshockley)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 5:45pm UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/5 "2010-08-15T17:45:28Z")
Got it & thank you for your patience. I may have a few more questions before the day is over. Regards, Steve ---
**Author:** ![Chuck\_Lambert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@Chuck\_Lambert](https://forum.nachi.org/u/Chuck_Lambert)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/6 "2010-08-15T19:52:05Z")
There is enough of a drip loop there to stop moisture from getting into the weatherhead. Chuck ---
**Author:** ![sshockley](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/internachi/user_avatar/forum.nachi.org/sshockley/32/1321_2.png) [@sshockley](https://forum.nachi.org/u/sshockley)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/7 "2010-08-15T20:03:07Z")
I see what you are saying, but aren’t the splices to the service entrance conductors still an issue with meeting NEC requirements because they aren’t at or above the mast height? All of the drip loop pictures I’ve been able to find show a much more defined drip loop. I’m just wondering if this would become an issue if ice were ever to form around it. Doesn’t the drip loop also help prevent straining on the splices? ---
**Author:** ![rmeier2](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/internachi/user_avatar/forum.nachi.org/rmeier2/32/59909_2.png) [@rmeier2](https://forum.nachi.org/u/rmeier2)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/8 "2010-08-15T21:27:05Z")
> **[InterNACHI®️ Forum](https://forum.nachi.org/)** > > The InterNACHI®️ forum is a place for home inspectors and InterNACHI®️ members to discuss everything and anything related to the home inspection industry. You might say that the neutral conductor has a drip loop but certainly not the ungrounded conductors. The idea is to keep water from running down the conductors and into the weather-head. From the photo it sure looks that would happen in the case of the ungrounded conductors. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Port](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/bc8723/32.png) [@Jim\_Port](https://forum.nachi.org/u/Jim_Port)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/9 "2010-08-16T01:23:42Z")
Robert, I am going to disagree with you about the ungrounded not having a drip loop. It could be the angle of the pic, but if I look where the two hots come close to the neutral above the louver, I pick up a slight upslope to the weatherhead. I certainly have seen bigger loops. I wonder if there was enough conductor length to make the connections and that is why it looks so tight. ---
**Author:** ![rmeier2](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/internachi/user_avatar/forum.nachi.org/rmeier2/32/59909_2.png) [@rmeier2](https://forum.nachi.org/u/rmeier2)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 9:02am UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/10 "2010-08-16T09:02:42Z")
> [@Jim\_Port](#): > > Robert, I am going to disagree with you about the ungrounded not having a drip loop. It could be the angle of the pic, but if I look where the two hots come close to the neutral above the louver, I pick up a slight upslope to the weatherhead. I certainly have seen bigger loops. I wonder if there was enough conductor length to make the connections and that is why it looks so tight. You could be right given the angle of the photo. Still IMO that is not a _loop_ by any means. An electrical inspector in many cases gets to make judgment calls based on his or her own opinion when things in the NEC are not explicitly defined. "_Subject to physical damage"_ and “_nearest the point of entry_” are two such phrases that come to mind. So if I were an EI and inspecting this it would fail based on my interpretation of the word \*loop \*and the intent of the code section to keep water from entering the weather-head. Again this is only my opinion based on the photo. ---
**Author:** ![sshockley](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/internachi/user_avatar/forum.nachi.org/sshockley/32/1321_2.png) [@sshockley](https://forum.nachi.org/u/sshockley)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2010, 10:41pm UTC](https://forum.nachi.org/t/drip-loop/51789/11 "2010-08-16T22:41:45Z")
Thanks all for the valued input. I did end up mentioning this as a safety concern and deferred it to a certified electrician for further evaluation and/or repair. Regards, Steve