Originally Posted By: Ryan Jackson This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jtedesco wrote:
OK, related issue here! I will discuss the subject of welding electrical systems.
(B) Welding. Metal raceways cannot be supported, terminated, or connected by "welding to the raceway" unless specifically designed to be, or otherwise specifically permitted to be in this Code.
Where??? Your turn to do a search!![/quote]
I searched weld, welded and welding, and I'm coming up dry for anything relavent.
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
or otherwise specifically permitted to be in this Code.
Ryan:
These words give the other Code Panels the opportunity to cover the same type of permission in other areas. Here are some that are basically related and where welding is acceptable.
410.15
110.14
250.8
250.30
250.64
250.70
300.18 here is where I found the rule I posted.
551.10
551.56
552.10
552.57
680.26
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jtedesco wrote:
... I have traveled around this country and hear the same arguments over and over again, and in some cases the local AHJ is bound and gagged by Politics.
I understand your frustration with the politics of codes enforcement from first had experience, but the HI is not a code enforcement official or the cure for that problem. An HI will usually flag a questionable issue for further evaluation regardless of any "approval" or "grandfathering" of that installation. But if a local licensed professional or codes official comes back that it's acceptable the only thing an HI can do is ask that it be put in writing. If they do, that is generally the end of the story for an HI who will defer to those people as the experts.
jtedesco wrote:
For the HI, what would you have to say about this "service mast" installation?
jtedesco wrote:
Where a raceway-type service mast is used, all raceway fittings must be identified for use with service masts.
More to the point of your original post, in my opinion the average HI generally will not know if the mast fittings are listed for that use or if the mast itself has sufficient strength (per the model codes). Based on visual observations an HI needs to make a call in the field based on any observed defects, as well as general information and guidelines.
IMHO thats where the 5' unsupported height rule of thumb for average residential service mast materials helps. It does not mean that a unsupported mast less than 5' is okay (as Blaine pointed out) or that one higher than 5' is unacceptable ... it's a mind flag to look more closely at the installation/fittings and also determine if it "appears" stable ... and possibly call out further evaluation or repair.
Just my opinion and 2-nickles
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: gbeaumont This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Hi to all,
I've been watching this and other similar threads and feel the need to comment.
In the first instance, I for one would not have written up that service mast, as I would have taken the view that it had to have been signed off by the AHJ, had it shown any signs of detatchment from the structure, or any signs of it bowing due to the upsupported loads, the I would have commented in my report that it required further evaluation.
I agree with Rob about the role of home inspectors, and it is very difficult to know when to make which call, here is my best stab at it.
If any system is in safe working condition, and is a good state of repair then with few exeptions I would not call it out for further evaluation, however this is in my eyes the important bit for home inspectors. If a system is in an unsafe condition, shows signs of having been modified by a non professional or the home has deteriorated to the extent that other deficiencies are having a negative inpact on the system I allways right them up.
I do not feel it is within the scope of a home inspector to be making code based judgements, soley on code issues.
having said that this is nothing if not an educational forum, and I for one learn a heck of a lot from the smart guys we have hanging around here, and some of these posts certainly open my eyes to issues that I have not previously thought about, but I am and will be, careful about how I report "code" issues.
Originally Posted By: jpeck This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
gbeaumont wrote:
If any system is in safe working condition, and is a good state of repair then with few exeptions I would not call it out for further evaluation, however this is in my eyes the important bit for home inspectors. If a system is in an unsafe condition, shows signs of having been modified by a non professional or the home has deteriorated to the extent that other deficiencies are having a negative inpact on the system I allways right them up.
Gerry,
I guess it comes down to how you define "safe working condition" and "a good state of repair".
An HIs definition of "safe" will vary, as will the result of that definition.
Also, an HIs definition of "good state of repair" will vary, also resulting in addressing it differently.
Something you may feel is in a "safe working condition", I may feel is "unsafe and needs to be written up". Likewise to a "good state of repair". If it is not installed, operating or being used as it was intended, it is not (in my opinion) in a good state of repair as it was never intended to be installed, operate, or be used that way.
I also never call for "further evaluation". It is either 'okay like it is' or 'it needs repair or replacement'. "Further evaluation" falls into the repair or replacement part as whoever is going to make that repair or replacement must first make their own evaluation as to what it needs or does not need. The closest thing I write to that is for structural engineers 'Have structural engineer design all necessary repairs, monitor those repairs, then provide an engineer's letter stating that all repairs have been made in accordance with the engineering design'.
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe T,
I agree with Gerry, Bob, and Rob,
In order for there to be power to a building or facility, an inspection by the AHJ and power authority would have had to be performed. No inspection tag, no electrical meter. And, even if the AJH signs off on it, the utility company can still refuse the service.
HIs are not Code Enforcement Officials. Aside from that fact, opinions vary from municipality to municipality, and inspector to inspector, as to what will be enforced and how the NEC is interpreted and administrated.
You are trying to write about absolutes, and unfort\unately, there are few in our industry.
-- Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: jfarsetta This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
, not as an electrical inspector, based upon our SOP.
Please keep in mind that there is power to the facility, which means that there were at the very least (1) a licensed electrical contractor who performed this installation, (2) an electrical inspector who approved the installation, and (3) the public utility installer who also reviewed/inspected this configuration, attached permanent power to it, and also approved the installation. You know these facts when you walk onto the property...
Now, picture you as the HI, looking this over. You are now a generalist, not an electrical code expert. You are aware that all three items mentioned above are absolutes. You also have no authority to interpret the NEC. You are not the AHJ, you're just a home inspector...
So, in your analysis, dont quote or make reference to the NEC. Deal in fact, with regard to what is known based upon your photo, keeping in mind that it is a 2-dimensional representation of what may actually exist. You asked us to comment as HIs... in order to legitimize this question, you need to think like an HI.
-- Joe Farsetta
Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Joe:
Thank you for identifying the NACHI philosophy based upon the NACHI SOP, and that NACHI members are not trained experts, or code scholars in the subject of the NEC or electrical inspections.
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I observed where the electric utility service drop is attached to a fitting that is not designed for that use. The existing strap for the service raceway is supported by a screw showing signs of corrosion, and is rusted. The main support for the service mast is missing, or has been removed.
It should also be noted that the communications service drop should not be supported by the mast.
I recommend contacting the local electrical inspector for verification and follow-up.
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
I recommend contacting the local electrical inspector for verification and follow-up.
I like the write up until the electrical inspector part. In this area, the county inspectors are overwhelmed, and will only come out for permit checks. Same way when I worked in VA. How about "recommend follow up and correction by a qualified licensed electrician or the local power company"?
Originally Posted By: roconnor This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
The electric service mast appears to be bending from tension in the overhead wires. The mast or fittings may have insufficient strength, or tie back supports for the mast may be missing. Note that a complete loss of power to the building and other hazards could result from a service mast failure.
Corrosion of some of the service conduit attachments was also observed, and attachment of communication wires to the mast is not recommended.
Further evaluation and repair by a licensed professional is recommended.
-- Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee
I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong
Originally Posted By: Blaine Wiley This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Works for me Rob!!
I always add "qualified" because in this area the license is held by the company owner or a representative and they can send out any flunkie in the shop. I think this is why I keep getting slammed for pointing out FPE panels. 
