Conduit on flat roof

[mathew stouffer]

Place was built in 1913. There is an old Zinsco panel but the conduit housing the conductors coming from the meter is laying on the flat roof. This is a first. Is it acceptable.

[A.D. Miller]

Place was built in 1913. There is an old Zinsco panel but the conduit housing the conductors coming from the meter is laying on the flat roof. This is a first. Is it acceptable.

MS: The panel should be replaced with real equipment. Assuming that the rigid conduit and fittings are corrosion-resistant and that the fittings are listed and labeled for wet locations, and that the conduit is properly supported in accordance with NEC 334.30, it should be OK.

The sparkies will likely find some fault with the above statement, but I am used to that.:D

[Jerry Peck]

In Florida the conduit would need to be supported up above the roof 8" (as I recall, possibly 9") to allow for re-roofing without having to remove that electrical or to disturb it.

Looks like some one used an old stair railing as that last part of the guard rail, which also needs to meet the requires for railings (and that obviously does not).

[Speedy Petey]

What scares me is that bare copper wire being used as the service neutral. :eek: :eek:

I'll ignore AD's ignorant comment. :rolleyes:

[A.D. Miller]

I'll ignore AD's . . . comment.

SP: KMA.:D

[Jerry Peck]

What scares me is that bare copper wire being used as the service neutral. :eek: :eek:

I didn't look at that photo as he was asking about the conduit on the roof and not the 'I know that Zinsco panel needs to be replaced' panel.

That said, after seeing your comment and looking at that photo ... :eek: :eek: ... is right!

[A.D. Miller]

I didn't look at that photo as he was asking about the conduit on the roof and not the 'I know that Zinsco panel needs to be replaced' panel.

That said, after seeing your comment and looking at that photo ... :eek: :eek: ... is right!

JP: Well, they put a warning sign right behind it! What else do you want?

[mathew stouffer]

You should have seen the other side of the "rail". There was a gate that opened over the side of the deck, about a 15 foot drop.

[John Steinke]

There's a lot we need to guess about, and those guesses, naturally, will influence our opinions.

First, It appears that this is a 'sub-panel' that was installed in order to provide power to some piece of 240v. equipment. If that panel is also the disconnecting means, we have problems as to the accessibility of the disconnect. We also have - possibly - an issue regarding the required 120v. receptacle for servicing that equipment.

"Protected against corrosion?" Well, all metal conduit is 'protected against corrosion" by the required galvanized plating. Is that enough? We need more than a few rust spots on the paint to say "no.

The other pipe - the "in" pipe, so to speak - appears to be PVC. I don't think it is supported as soon as it needs to be after leaving the panel. The horizontal parts of the run may need expansion fittings. If the PVC is "subject to damage" - absent such damage, it's pretty much a judgement call - it really ought to be Schedule 80.

Follow both pipe runs; I suspect that the total bends of each run exceed 360 degrees; experience suggests that, with two 90's so close to the panel, they ran out of bends pretty early.

While the NEC is silent on the issue, many locales would require a ground wire be run within the conduit that goes across the roof.

Inside the PVC, the bare neutral suggests that SER cable was run. This opens up the whole debate about running a cable inside conduit. Code debate aside, running that cable makes it nearly impossible to pull another wire in.

No, does he need a 4th wire? If the only loads served are 220, he does not need a neutral wire. Yet, even then, the neutral serving the load ought to be alone on the bussbar. The ground needs to be bonded to the case; right now, it looks like there is no ground path for the case or the rigid conduit.

[mathew stouffer]

John,
The photo is a bit misleading, I thought the pip was PVC as well but it was not, its metal.

[Jerry Peck]

First, It appears that this is a 'sub-panel' ...


Looks more like a 'roof-panel' to me, but my eyes could be deceiving me (sure likes like that is on a 'roof' and not in a 'sub', oh well, guess that is the 'roof' of a 'sub' :confused: ).