Originally Posted By: rchoreyii
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/D/DSCN0371.jpg ]
–
Ron Chorey
LAS CRUCES Home Inspections
rchorey@comcast.net
rchoreyii@nm.nachi.org
http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/D/DSCN0371.jpg ]
Originally Posted By: pdickerson
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Are the service wires actually in contact with the flashing? If not are there any marks on the wire insulation indicating that the wires do come into contact with the flashing when the wind blows?
I ran into a similar situation recently with the service wires passing within 1/4" of a metal gutter. I am not aware of any code restictions here, but I called it out as unsafe.
Originally Posted By: whandley
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Mast should have extended through the roof line with weather head rise sufficient to maintain service drop wiring a minimum of 18" above the roof line. I also don’t see the drip loop wiring, looks like water will run directly into the connectors. I’d refer the buyer to an independent licensed electrical contractor for further inspection/service as needed to ensure safe, hazard free, code compliant systems integrity prior to close of escrow.
Originally Posted By: rchoreyii
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thank you gentlemen for your expetise.
–
Ron Chorey
LAS CRUCES Home Inspections
rchorey@comcast.net
rchoreyii@nm.nachi.org
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The drip loops look OK, their function is to keep water out of the service mast. As often as not the connectors will be at the bottom of the loops.
I do agree the placement of the drop sucks. Unfortunately it belongs to the utility and they may not agree it is dangrous. The homeowner control and the NEC stop at the service point, which is the drip loop in this case. I bet you will also see the wire size get smaller there.
Originally Posted By: rchoreyii
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/e/electric_panel.jpg ]
I am recommending an electrician anyway because of the small service size and the buyer wants to add on to the home and build a wood working shop. Part of the home has grounded outlets, part does not. There is romex in the attic and also old cloth covered wiring, but it is all copper.
--
Ron Chorey
LAS CRUCES Home Inspections
rchorey@comcast.net
rchoreyii@nm.nachi.org
Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
IMO it is likely the flashing will become energized creating a fire and shock hazard.
I would recommend that you refer this to the utility company
I agree with Greg, the NEC stops at the service point.
| Quote: |
| Service Point. The point of connection between the facilities of the serving utility and the premises wiring. |
In my area the power company owns, installs, controls the overhead service conductors.
| Quote: |
| 90.2 Scope.
(B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following: (5)Installations under the exclusive control of an electric utility where such installations a.Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated metering, or |
--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Just my opinion and 2-nickels ... 
--
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: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Robert I believe the utility could ignore the building codes just as it can ignore the NEC.
Typically they follow the NESC and I just recently learned that the NESC has less stringent overhead clearances than the NEC. Even with the easer regulations I am sure the conductors should not be touching the structure.
In any event it is a lousy installation that should be addressed. 
--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The new owner has the best chance of getting this fixed as part of a service upgrade. If they really only have 70a service that is probably on the short list of things to do anyway. Once they have the SE conductors out, extending the mast or whatever other remedy the EC suggests is going to be pretty easy. The scary thing is, even if they go from the current 70(?) to 200, I doubt they will get a new sevice drop. That looks like the regular triplex everyone gets. The only time I see the drop get replaced is if it is the old type with 3 separate wires. When they swap that one out everyone (200a and less) gets the same triplex. It looks like that one was already done and that is probably when this ugly drop happened.
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| bbadger wrote: |
| ... the NESC has less stringent overhead clearances than the NEC. |
Interesting. But the service mast requirements in the IRC actually have provisions based on the utility wire clearances/locations (IRC E3504.2.1 and NEC 230.24). So IMHO any service mast install using reduced NESC clearances would have to be an alternate design that the AHJ must approve.
| rchoreyii wrote: |
| I have recommended an electrician evalute and possibly raise the mast through the roof and be at least 18 inches above the ridge line. |
Careful there with specific installation/height recommendations ... the mast may need to provide for 3' clear to the loop if enough utility wire is over the roof, and possibly 8' clear if a lower slope roof. Leave that up to the EC ... 
[ Image: http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/E/ElecServiceRoofClearance.jpg ]
Bottom line is I think you made the right call that it's a safety concern ...
--
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: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The AHJ for the utility side is going to be the POCO engineering department about 99% of the time.
You have to be careful what you wish for. They are likely to agree the roof clearance is a problem, recognize the NEC 8’ rule and decide the easy fix is to simply hang the drop on the front of the house, declaring the service point is there and have the EC stringing SE cable/raceway around the side to the current service mast.
Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| Greg Fretwell wrote: |
| You have to be careful what you wish for. |
Very true ... 
The utility just might make that call. Even if it met any reduced NESC clearances (not likely for that install) and the utility is okay with it, the local AHJ could write up the service mast as not meeting more restrictive IRC/NEC requirements. Overhead service drops can get pretty sticky.
Actually, running the SE cable/raceway around to the other side might be another option for the electrician to consider if the clearances will work ...
--
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