Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
How would a Home Inspector identify the defect(s), if any?
--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm
How would a Home Inspector identify the defect(s), if any?
Originally Posted By: jstevens
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Service drop to close to window , also covered by shutter
Originally Posted By: jpope
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
The drop is okay, but the SEC and meter box are too close to the window. It looks like they are NOT in conduit (or possibly in LFNMC). They should be protected by EMT or RMC from the riser.
–
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
“At JPI, we’ll help you look better”
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jpope wrote: |
| It looks like they are NOT in conduit . They should be protected by EMT or RMC from the riser. |
Are you sure about that?
Jeff SE from weather head to sill is very common in my area.
If I tried doing a CA service (riser in the wall) out here I would fail.
--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: dedwards
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Looks like that meter can could be too high, plus what else has already been mentioned.
Originally Posted By: jpope
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| bbadger wrote: |
| Are you sure about that? |
Not completely, no.
| bbadger wrote: |
| Jeff SE from weather head to sill is very common in my area. |
Unprotected SE?
| bbadger wrote: |
| If I tried doing a CA service (riser in the wall) out here I would fail. |
SE cable assemblies inside walls are common. I'll have to get back to you on exposed - NM - SEC.
--
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: lkage
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I’d probably call out the meter base too close to the operable window and the SE cable running unprotected below the meter if it’s next to a driveway.
–
“I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn’t learn something from him.”
Galileo Galilei
Originally Posted By: rcooke
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
How about the incoming lines rubbing on the facia.
If the home has metal siding The walls could be energized.
–
Roy Cooke Sr.
http://Royshomeinspection.com
Originally Posted By: lewens
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Wouldn’t pass up here as it is farther than 6’ from corner of the building. Don’t to make those meter readers walk too far now.
–
Just my usual 12.5 cents
From The Great White North Eh?
NACHI-CAN
www.aciss-brant.com
www.certifiedadulttrainingservices.com/
Originally Posted By: jkormos
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| rcooke wrote: |
| How about the incoming lines rubbing on the facia.
If the home has metal siding The walls could be energized. |
This would be my #1 
Originally Posted By: jwilliams4
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I say we all make 'em move the window…
–
“not just an inspection, but an education”
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I agree with the facia issue, it does look like the wire is rubbing on the aluminum.
The PoCo should fix this.
Physical protection of SE seems to be a regional issue. Some AHJs want it, others don’t see it as an issue. In Md this was the way they did it, no pipe. The window is not a factor. The shutter may be if it is pinching the SE.
Originally Posted By: jpope
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| bbadger wrote: |
| If I tried doing a CA service (riser in the wall) out here I would fail. |
Bob,
I was steered to NEC 230.50(A)
| Quote: |
| 230.50 - Protection of Open Conductors and Cables Against Damage - Above Ground. Service entrance conductors installed above ground shall be protected against physical damage as specified in 230.50(A) or (B).
(A) Service Cables. Service cables, where subject to physical damage shall be protected by any of the following: (1) Rigid metal conduit (2) Intermediate metal conduit (3) Schedule 80 rigid nonmetallic conduit (4) Electrical metallic tubing (5) Other approved means |
I guess the interpretation of Subject to Physical Damage would be the kicker.
--
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jpope wrote: | ||||
Bob, I was steered to NEC 230.50(A)
I guess the interpretation of Subject to Physical Damage would be the kicker. |
You got it. 
In my area if this is in a typical yard the inspectors would not consider it Subject to Physical Damage.
If this was right on driveway most inspectors here would ask for protection.
My comment on the CA services with the service panels flush mounted in the wall and the riser raceway in the wall passing up through the attic and out of the roof would not be allowed here.
That would be consider to much service conductor in the house.
Now mind you I am not saying one way is right and the wrong, just pointing out the local differences.
It can not be denied that both ways must be effective or we would be seeing a lot more problems.
--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: jpope
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| bbadger wrote: |
| My comment on the CA services with the service panels flush mounted in the wall and the riser raceway in the wall passing up through the attic and out of the roof would not be allowed here.
That would be consider to much service conductor in the house. |
I commonly see 20' or even 30' feet of SEC from the drop (point of attachment), through the attic, to the meter and service equipment.
What is the reference for "too much service conductor in the house?"
--
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Here is the rule that will answer your question Jeff:
| Quote: |
| 230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building
Conductors shall be considered outside of a building or other structure under any of the following conditions: (1) Where installed under not less than 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete beneath a building or other structure (2) Where installed within a building or other structure in a raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than 50 mm (2 in.) thick |
--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm
Originally Posted By: bbadger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| jpope wrote: |
|
What is the reference for "too much service conductor in the house?" |
| Quote: |
| 230.70(A)(1) Readily Accessible Location. The service disconnecting means shall be installed at a readily accessible location either outside of a building or structure or inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors. |
Here and in many parts of the country they would consider the service conductor 'inside' the instant they penetrate the roof.
However no measurement is given by the NEC.
Here is the handbook commentary about this.
| Quote: |
| No maximum distance is specified from the point of entrance of service conductors to a readily accessible location for the installation of a service disconnecting means. The authority enforcing this Code has the responsibility for, and is charged with, making the decision as to how far inside the building the service-entrance conductors are allowed to travel to the main disconnecting means. The length of service-entrance conductors should be kept to a minimum inside buildings, because power utilities provide limited overcurrent protection and, in the event of a fault, the service conductors could ignite nearby combustible materials.
Some local jurisdictions have ordinances that allow service-entrance conductors to run within the building up to a specified length to terminate at the disconnecting means. The authority having jurisdiction may permit service conductors to bypass fuel storage tanks or gas meters and the like, permitting the service disconnecting means to be located in a readily accessible location. However, if the authority judges the distance as being excessive, the disconnecting means may be required to be located on the outside of the building or near the building at a readily accessible location that is not necessarily nearest the point of entrance of the conductors. See also 230.6 and Exhibit 230.15 for conductors considered to be outside a building. |
--
Bob Badger
Electrical Construction & Maintenance
Moderator at ECN
Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Continued:
here's two more:
| Quote: |
| (3) Where installed in any vault that meets the construction requirements of Article 450, Part III
(4) Where installed in conduit and under not less than 450 mm (18 in.) of earth beneath a building or other structure |
--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm
Originally Posted By: jpope
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thanks Bob.
–
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
“At JPI, we’ll help you look better”
(661) 212-0738
Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
| Quote: |
| I commonly see 20' or even 30' feet of SEC from the drop (point of attachment), through the attic, to the meter and service equipment.
What is the reference for "too much service conductor in the house?" |
Jeff: The correct reference is 230.6.
Have you ever mentioned that the SE Cable was in the attic?
SERIOUS DEFECT FOR SURE AND A FIRE HAZARD!
--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm