Wow, it is possible that one of those conductors is the GEC but I doubt it. Looks like they they’ve paralleled the neutral which not is permitted for conductors smaller than #1/0. Also you’re correct about the lack of a drip loop.
Likely mistaken but what you are referring to would be for large ampacity feeders or services.
Morning, Devin. Although from what I understand, non compliant, this got me puzzled.
Can you describe the service equipment the parallel neutrals enter please?
Sorry for the edit.
So here’s the dead front, quite different. if you zoom in on the top there’s a small amount of info but I’m probably going to have to take the dead front off to get anymore information, which I’ll do soon.
Ya I’m confused on this one
This is purely a guess! Is the home served by a Electric Coop? The unalterable policy of the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) was that the Grounding Electrode Conductor has to run from the driven rod or buried plate electrode to the neutral in the Meter Enclosure and on to a connection on the customer side of the connection to the service drop. That splice is the Demarcation Point between the customer owned wiring and the Coop owned wiring. REA engineers had concluded that this practice offered the best protection for the customers wiring from a lightning strike to the Coop’s outside lines. I don’t remember seeing any of the REA installations that were run in Service Masts as in your photograph but my experience with REA installations is hardly exhaustive. Remember that I said this explanation is pure guess. I would really like to know if the serving utility is a coop or a legacy coop service area. If that is a Coop served installation it is in violation of the REA Coop service standard but not to the best of my knowledge of the US National Electric Code. The REA service standard would have required that the Grounding Electrode Conductor be bonded to the mast at the weather head and since it leaves the mast through an insulated bushing the likelihood of compliance with the REA standard is low.
Yes the serving utility is an Electric coop. Wow sounds like you have a pretty good understanding of it, Im going to have to reread that a few times. Thanks for the response
Please stop saying non compliant or not to code. Simply say that the overhead service requires evaluation by a licensed electrician. That installation is most likely code compliant. It just doesn’t meet the NEC requirements.
Try to start thinking of some electrical defects as you do about structural issues that require a PE.
Or simply state that the overhead in its present condition concerns you.
Remember that our inspections are our opinions. Even as an electrical inspector I do not always feel the need to cite ‘code’. KISS.
But any electrician can say, “it is compliant as it does not violate the curremt code or code at the time of installation”
In this case I’d have no issue saying NEC violation as you can not parallel conductors of that size and I’d be curious how they were landed in the meter enclosure typically having only one neutral lug on the line and one lug on the load rated for a single conductor.
What exactly does it mean to parallel conductors? And why would you ever need to do it? Ive googled it but not sure.
Paralleling conductors is when you take two or more smaller conductors and connect them together at both ends to make a larger conductor. The NEC limits the size of parallel conductors to a minimum of #1/0.
In Ohio you would be prohibited from saying that.
B) The “practice of electrical inspection” includes any ascertainment of compliance with the Ohio building code, or the electrical code of a political subdivision of this state by a person, who, for compensation, inspects the construction and installation of electrical conductors, fittings, devices, and fixtures for light, heat or power services equipment, or the installation, alteration, replacement, maintenance, or repair of any electrical wiring and equipment that is subject to any of the aforementioned codes
12 years ago I was challengedon this and the state agreed with me.
Nothing has changed.