Thread: Service Drop - Flag this drip loop?

Here is a recently updated drop in new conduit. In one season the trees have overgrown the wires plus I question the marginal drip loop if any. Do you agree?



Similar Threads:

• Electrical service box located in closet
• Wire splices in service equipment panel
• Service Mask Head under Eaves
• 16 guage wire in service panel
• Welcome From F.I.R.E. Service

I don't see how a drip loop that looks like 12" or so could be called marginal.

I would not have sleeved the PVC into the old mast that way tho.

IMO it's fine. Water will never travel up the vertical portion of those conductors. I've done services where we've left 4' of conductor out of the weatherhead only top have the utility cut it back to what you've depicted in your photo.

Water will enter between the old steel pipe and the smaller new pipe.

Thanks fellas. I have always been under the impression that the conductors need to drop below the support wire for a "proper" drip loop. I agree however that in this case the service cap is well above the low point.

As for the conduit in the old mast, on the exterior wall below the eaves the old steel mast is cut off about 3 feet above the meter box. The utility just used the old mast as a channel to get though the roof. The new conduit is independently supported against the brick veneer wall above and below the meter box.

There was no evidence of water intrusion inside the house at the service entry or at the panel.

Phil

I'm thinking that new mast looks a lot like PVC ...

It is PVC sleeved inside the old metal mast.

That is what I thought, and PVC is going to bend and flex and crush against the side of the old mast from the weight of the overhead service drop. Yes, I know ... most ... most of the weight is attached to the old metal mast, which no longer has its proper support, but as can already be seen in the photos - the PVC mast is being pulled toward the overhead service drip.

Not to mention that PVC is not approved for use as a mast.

Then there is the fact that there is a metal conduit sleeve which is now not grounded. Even back in the 1897 NEC, yes, the first NEC, metal conduits, when used, were required to be grounded (metal conduits were not required to be used, but when used - they were required to be grounded).

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That is what I thought, and PVC is going to bend and flex and crush against the side of the old mast from the weight of the overhead service drop. Yes, I know ... most ... most of the weight is attached to the old metal mast, which no longer has its proper support, but as can already be seen in the photos - the PVC mast is being pulled toward the overhead service drip.

Not to mention that PVC is not approved for use as a mast.

Then there is the fact that there is a metal conduit sleeve which is now not grounded. Even back in the 1897 NEC, yes, the first NEC, metal conduits, when used, were required to be grounded (metal conduits were not required to be used, but when used - they were required to be grounded).

Jerry, what are you talking about???

- The PVC is NOT being used as a mast, nor is it giving ANY support to the drop. ALL of the weight of the drop is on the old metal mast.
- From what I see NOTHING is pulling on the PVC, nor do I see any evidence or clues that teh PVC will be "crushed".
- How do you know from just those pics that the mast is not giving proper support?
- The metal mast is NOT a sleeve. it is no different than if the PVC were to be run in a wall cavity.


IMO this is a hacky, yet creative, way around a problem. Would I do it this way, absolutely not. Are there any code violations? From what I am seeing, not yet.

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

Jerry, what are you talking about???

- The PVC is NOT being used as a mast, nor is it giving ANY support to the drop. ALL of the weight of the drop is on the old metal mast.

That's what I first thought too ... then I noticed that the PVC is slightly bent and leaning toward the overhead service drop.

- From what I see NOTHING is pulling on the PVC, nor do I see any evidence or clues that teh PVC will be "crushed".

I don't see signs of crushing either ... yet ... but the PVC IS leaning and slightly bent toward the overhead service drop.

- How do you know from just those pics that the mast is not giving proper support?

By reading this.

Originally Posted by Phil Barr

As for the conduit in the old mast, on the exterior wall below the eaves the old steel mast is cut off about 3 feet above the meter box. The utility just used the old mast as a channel to get though the roof. The new conduit is independently supported against the brick veneer wall above and below the meter box.

He said it was.

- The metal mast is NOT a sleeve. it is no different than if the PVC were to be run in a wall cavity.

Better go back and re-read the post of his I quoted above.

IMO this is a hacky, yet creative, way around a problem. Would I do it this way, absolutely not. Are there any code violations? From what I am seeing, not yet.

Look again - is PVC approved as a material listed for use as a service mast? Not that I know of. That is NEC code violation one right there. I am sure there are more if I thought about it for a few seconds.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Look again - is PVC approved as a material listed for use as a service mast? Not that I know of. That is NEC code violation one right there. I am sure there are more if I thought about it for a few seconds.

IMO it is NOT a mast, it is a riser.

My home growing up had a 4x4 post sticking up 3' out of the roof that supported the service drop. They had SEU running up the house and over to the 4x4 mast. Back in the day it was perfectly legal. Every home on the block was done this way.
Similar to this situation, would you consider the SEU a "mast"???

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

IMO it is NOT a mast, it is a riser.

Then what is it?

My home growing up had a 4x4 post sticking up 3' out of the roof that supported the service drop. They had SEU running up the house and over to the 4x4 mast. Back in the day it was perfectly legal. Every home on the block was done this way.
Similar to this situation, would you consider the SEU a "mast"???

"would you consider the SEU a "mast"???" - No more than I would consider the conductors within the PVC a "mast".

That 4x4 would have been considered the "mast", like that PVC is the "mast".

The original rigid mast is now just a sleeve through the roof through which the mast (the PVC) is routed.

This is laughable! It would never pass any inspection where I am and I seriously doubt it was ever permitted or inspected.

However the PVC conduit is NOT the mast! The mast it the rigid metal conduit that the PVC is routed through. The PVC conduit and wiring are not supporting the service drop and that is what a mast does, it supports the service drop.

If the service drop was attached directly to the house the "riser" could legally be EMT because it wouldn't be supporting the drop. I don't know of anywhere that allows PVC for a riser but I see a PVC weatherhead in the OP's picture so....? Why would they make a PVC weatherhead if there was no place you could use it?

Mast = support for drop, but it is also part of the riser if it used as conduit from meter to weatherhead
Riser = wiring from meter to POCO point of attachment. Can be installed within the mast or in a separate conduit next to the mast.

Originally Posted by Lou Romano

This is laughable! It would never pass any inspection where I am and I seriously doubt it was ever permitted or inspected.

However the PVC conduit is NOT the mast! The mast it the rigid metal conduit that the PVC is routed through. The PVC conduit and wiring are not supporting the service drop and that is what a mast does, it supports the service drop.

If the service drop was attached directly to the house the "riser" could legally be EMT because it wouldn't be supporting the drop. I don't know of anywhere that allows PVC for a riser but I see a PVC weatherhead in the OP's picture so....? Why would they make a PVC weatherhead if there was no place you could use it?

Mast = support for drop, but it is also part of the riser if it used as conduit from meter to weatherhead
Riser = wiring from meter to POCO point of attachment. Can be installed within the mast or in a separate conduit next to the mast.

You've never seen PVC used to enclose the service entrance conductors?

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

You've never seen PVC used to enclose the service entrance conductors?

No, not in the 36 years I have been doing electrical work here in Miami. I have seen PVC nipples between the meter and main but never a riser in PVC. Rigid metal conduit or EMT only here.

Originally Posted by Lou Romano

No, not in the 36 years I have been doing electrical work here in Miami. I have seen PVC nipples between the meter and main but never a riser in PVC. Rigid metal conduit or EMT only here.

Ok, must be a local code thing. This has been permitted by the NEC for decades.

Originally Posted by Lou Romano

Why would they make a PVC weatherhead if there was no place you could use it?

Is that weatherhead PVC? Looks like a regular old weatherhead to me?

Sheesh. If he had simply shoved the weatherhead down tight to the mast, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Is that weatherhead PVC? Looks like a regular old weatherhead to me?

It's definitely PVC.



Shop CANTEX 1 1/4" Schedule 40 PVC Service Entrance Cap (Weather Head) at Lowes.com

Even if the PVC is legit, "Bell end" up? What were they thinking? Imagine installing downspouts with the bell / flared ends down. JMO.

Originally Posted by Jim Hintz

Even if the PVC is legit, "Bell end" up? What were they thinking? Imagine installing downspouts with the bell / flared ends down. JMO.

I'll assume that they were thinking that the PVC cement would keep the water out. Is there a requirement to install the bell end down?

It seems logical to install the bell ends down though i've seen countless installations around here that don't even have a weather head installed where the service conductors exit the riser. Guess the local inspector thinks the amount of moisture entering the open riser is nominal. An upside down bell that's been glued would likely be rather resistant relatively speaking. Does anyone call that out?

Originally Posted by Luc V. L.

It seems logical to install the bell ends down though i've seen countless installations around here that don't even have a weather head installed where the service conductors exit the riser. Guess the local inspector thinks the amount of moisture entering the open riser is nominal. An upside down bell that's been glued would likely be rather resistant relatively speaking.

I agree, but I definitely do go out of my way to keep bell ends facing down.

Originally Posted by Luc V. L.

Does anyone call that out?

I certainly hope not!

Originally Posted by Luc V. L.

. An upside down bell that's been glued would likely be rather resistant relatively speaking. Does anyone call that out?

How could you call that out? Does it violate some code? I don't see this being any more of a problem than the terminal adapter entering the meter enclosure.

No code violation unless the AHJ would consider the PVC as not being supported.. would need some type of bushing/clamp to keep it from mechanical injury. The conduit is subject to such as it is installed IMO.

As stated previously, the mast support was a usual scene many years ago, without a bushing at the top to protect the SE cable.
I have utilized these when replacing the old cable by installing a weather head on top of the old riser.
I apologize for mixing terms here.

Bell end up or down, that PVC is considered a wet location, i.e. that there is water in it.

What's wrong with me?

I actually agree with everything Jerry posted!

He'll probably tell me to check my meds.

What is being called a mast cannot be such.

It is open on both ends and is therefore a chase at best.

POCO here would require a guy wire supporting in the opposite direction of the tension if it were a mast.

Would not pass inspection the way it is depicted and described.

PVC installed inside what is that, EMT?

Unless PVC is Schedule 80, it appears as if the wall thickness of the PVC is greater than that of the chase pipe.

Bell end up?

Reflects someone too lazy to remove the old pipe, now a chase, and perform the installation properly.

Half assed all the way around.

Looks like a trunk slammer that probably was never inspected to begin with.

Shame on POCO employee who connected it too.

Workmanlike manner?

Doubt it.