Low service over a roof

[rbrady]

It looks like this service wire was recently replaced. It had to have been done by the utility company. This can't be OK, can it.
Without quoting code, what is the issue/risk? The only thing I can think of is that it would be a hazard for anyone working on the roof, which is enough of an issue.

[Bob Elliott]

danger to a roofer for instance.
call the utility company.
18 inch min
I wonder if the mast should have been moved to a better location seeing that picture.

[Speedy Petey]

That does not look very new to me. That mast for instance is pretty old looking.
Maybe you are talking about just the drop from the pole?

This is not typically the responsibility of the POCO. The service location and clearances are the installer's responsibility.

A) That mast is NOT in the right spot. It should have never been placed so the the service drop crosses that much of the roof.

B) Even if it were tall enough to clear the roof better there would be no way to back guy it.

Safety issue? Yes.
It is a code violation so IMO it is inherently not safe. How "not safe" is a judgment call.

Solution? Who knows.
If it were me selling I'd say too bad. It's there and it's done and I have a CO.
If I were the buyer I am not sure what legal, or other, grounds I would have to bargain.
I think it depends on how motivated the seller is.

[Bob Elliott]

Speedy who ran the drop from the pole to that mast location.
Is it not the utiity companies responsibility?

[Speedy Petey]

Also, from a code standpoint in this instance:
- If the roof is less than a 4/12 pitch there must be 8' of clearance.
- For roofs of 4/12 or more, and where the voltage between conductors does not exceed 300V, the clearance can be reduced to 3'.

[Speedy Petey]

Originally Posted by relliott

Speedy who ran the drop from the pole to that mast location.
Is it not the utiity companies responsibility?

Yes they did. But it is NOT their responsibility to maintain clearances. Such as roof or window clearances.
They did not put the mast there. The installer did.

IMO that should have never even been hooked up.

[Bob Elliott]

Here is why I think it is up to the service provider.
http://www.nachi.org/forum/f19/service-drop-question-24382/
Also they never should have ran the drop conductors from the pole to the mast then correct? But they did .
Or are you saying a sparky moved the conductors on his own.
Just want this straight.

[rbrady]

The mast wasn't replaced, but the cable from the pole and the connectors looked new. The roof also had new shingles near the peak where the cable passed. I suspect the previous cable was damaged by the roof, and damaged some shingles.

Those service wires were only about 2 feet over the roof at the highest point.

It is hard to believe the utility company would do that.

Thanks for the replies.

[Speedy Petey]

Robert, no, I am not saying the installer moved the drop, and I do agree that it should have never been installed in the first place, but these things do happen even though they shouldn't.

I'm not sure what that other thread proves, and to be honest it does not apply here.
Without getting all codey, a drop that crosses a roof for the distance shown in this thread falls under MUCH stricter rules than one in your thread.
I can post the code sections if you like. It may clarify things.

[Bob Elliott]

Hope you checked the link out where I had a simular question.

[Bob Elliott]

Ok Speedy but I was using that to reference where everyone seemed to agree the utility company should move it.
That is the advise I give since and had another situation recently.
Let me go dig up the pic.Ono momento.

[Speedy Petey]

In the mean time. Just for reference. The situation in this thread Exc. #2 applies. In your thread Exc. #3 applies.

225.19 Clearances from Buildings for Conductors of Not Over 600 Volts, Nominal

(A) Above Roofs Overhead spans of open conductors and open multiconductor cables 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 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 traffic shall have a vertical clearance from the roof surface in accordance with the clearance requirements of 225.18.

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 the 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.

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 conductors are attached to the side of a building.

[Bob Elliott]

Sorry for the poor quality as it was a drive by.
The mast was in the picture then moved to the other side where the conductors were actually touching the chimney.
I told him to call the power company.
This could be corrected with a mid-span aerial drop, as it is still straight from the pole.
Technically I believe they are not allowed to cross property lines any more.

[rbrady]

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

...The situation in this thread Exc. #2 applies.
...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.

Actually, I think that due to the relatively low roof pitch, this exception doesn't apply.

[Speedy Petey]

Really, that looks like at least 4/12 to me. No?
3/12 is pretty flat.