Weather Head

[Sam Morris]

Does anyone else think this should be a defect. Notice the wood holding the wires up.. SEE PICTURE

[John Kogel]

Yes, it is a defect. If the extra height is needed, a taller mast needs to be installed. $$$

[Gunnar Alquist]

The real problem there is that the building is laying on its side. Just how do you get in the front door? :cool:

[Egbert Jager]

With proper flashing at roof penetration:

http://doitbest.com/Flashing-Oatey-model-14049-doitbest-sku-449303.dib

Galvanized Base No-Calk® Roof Flashings :: Oatey.com (http://www.oatey.com/Plumber/Shared/ProductGroupDetail/22/Galvanized+Base+No-Calk%C2%AE+Roof+Flashings.html)

[Jon Errickson]

The real problem there is that the building is laying on its side. Just how do you get in the front door? :cool:

Gunnar -- I was thinking the same thing. They might be better off replacing those shingles with some vinyl siding!

[Bob Winchester]

The utility did not approach the service mast at the correct angle to comply with any code. The mast was not constructed tall enough to approach from this angle. Normally the utility will just connect it but maybe they requried the wood support to be installed. They could terminate at the support and keep the wiring at the proper height above the roof overhang and be code compliant. Nothing says the service lateral must terminate at the mast. There is no problem terminating to the structure. It certainly does look hokey.

[Vern Heiler]

The real problem there is that the building is laying on its side. Just how do you get in the front door? :cool:

Gunner, the house is built on the side of a moutain!

[James Duffin]

It appears that the only thing amiss with the installation is that there is not 18" of clearance as required in Exception 3 shown below. (Not sure what going on with the flashing)



230.24 Clearances.

Service-drop conductors shall not be

readily accessible and shall comply with 230.24(A) through
(D) for services not over 600 volts, nominal.
(A) Above Roofs.


Conductors shall have a vertical clearance

of not less than 2.5 m (8 ft) above the roof surface.
The vertical clearance above the roof level shall be
maintained for a distance of not less than 900 mm (3 ft)
in all directions from the edge of the roof.


Exception No. 1: The area above a roof surface subject to
pedestrian or vehicular traffıc shall have a vertical clearance
from the roof surface in accordance with the clearance
requirements of 230.24(B).


Exception No. 2: Where the voltage between conductors
does not exceed 300 and the roof has a slope of 100 mm in
300 mm (4 in. in 12 in.) or greater, a reduction in clearance
to 900 mm (3 ft) shall be permitted.


Exception No. 3: Where the voltage between conductors
does not exceed 300, a reduction in clearance above only
the overhanging portion of the roof to not less than 450 mm
(18 in.) shall be permitted if (1) not more than 1.8 m (6 ft)
of service-drop conductors, 1.2 m (4 ft) horizontally, pass
above the roof overhang, and (2) they are terminated at a
through-the-roof raceway or approved support.
FPN: See 230.28 for mast supports.


Exception No. 4: The requirement for maintaining the vertical
clearance 900 mm (3 ft) from the edge of the roof shall
not apply to the final conductor span where the service
drop is attached to the side of a building.

[Mike Schulz]

Whats the abandoned conduit at the base of the mast too? It doesn't look kosher left with conductors hanging out of it.

[Eric Barker]

Actually, it's OK if you use a special clamp that can be found in the better supply houses.

[John Kogel]

Actually, it's OK if you use a special clamp that can be found in the better supply houses.Thanks Eric and James.
"Approved support" can mean many things to many people,apparently. :confused:
The insulation is prone to chafing in that picture. I would still call it out, even if the height was correct.

The clamp would prevent chafing of the insulation. But why not just put up a proper 4X4 mast with an insulated knob?
Even with the clamp, a lousy 2X4 scabbed to the side of the shack would not be permitted where I live.

Mike, you are right, those extra feeders don't look kosher at all, kind of like someone was bypassing the meter there. Why do that? :)

[Eric Barker]

John & anyone else,

If you took my comment seriously - don't.

[John Kogel]

John & anyone else,

If you took my comment seriously - don't.Thanks Eric. It looked serious to me. Scary, in fact. :)

[Sam Morris]

Does anyone else think this should be a defect. Notice the wood holding the wires up.. SEE PICTURE The extra wires at bottom werr not hot.. Good Eye

[Jerry Peck]

Several things wrong in that photo, and some potential things if other unknowns are present.

Not properly flashed is one thing wrong.

Not at lest 18" above the overhang, provided that is indeed a gable overhang of that much (approximately 2-1/2 feet of overhang at the gable).

If not over an overhang, then the 18" goes out the window and you either have 3 feet minimum clearance for 4/12 and greater slopes or 8 feet minimum clearance for under 4/12 slopes to flat roofs.

Also, if that is an overhang, then the maximum distance across the overhang is 4 feet, and the maximum conductor length is 6-1/2 feet (to allow for the upward slope extra length).

Even if abandoned (and just because there is no power does not mean it is abandoned) - that conduit fitting needs to end in a junction box with those wires properly capped off in the junction box.

That board has to go.

Those are for starters, ... only then should we start to deal with the sideways house ... :D

[Wayne Carlisle]

The original picture was giving me a creek...crek...creik....making my neck hurt.

[Denny Waters]

Copper neutral equals stretch.