I’ve never seen a mast installed on a hip like this and although I think it was a really stupid thing to do and the Sparky should have installed it over a few inches, I don’t think it’s a defect, just not best practice.
I did call out the flashing not being flush.
Comments please.
Depends on IF you believe non-compliance with Section 230.6 of the NEC is a “defect”. Having unprotected conductors extending into the building other than what the NEC provides for is something worth mentioning.
Based on the images I see the conduit it not penetrating at the eaves per item 5 for example.
(5) Where installed within rigid metal conduit (Type
RMC) or intermediate metal conduit (Type IMC) used
to accommodate the clearance requirements in 230.24
and routed directly through an eave but not a wall of a
building.
In new york that would all depend on the how high the mast is. The mast must be ladder accessable no utility worker is actually aload to walk on roof, most will but its technically a violation and safty concern. Most times we see that is when the home owners add an extention to the house and leave the original mast.
House was built in 1950.
I’m not sure if that mast was original or not. The mast did extend to the meter panel which was in the garage so there were no unprotected cables, but it was not installed through an eve.
A new panel was installed in 2012 as dated on the inspection sticker.
I know if it were to be upgraded today it would have to be moved as the meter panel would have to be outside.
Thanks for the replies.
The protection requirement is overcurrent protection, not necessarily physical protection. Unfused conductors inside a building need to be “as short as practical”.
Never heard of a meter panel, now I have heard of a meter enclosure and panel combo but never a meter panel. The provision of 230.70(A)(1) demands the service disconnect me outside of nearest point of entry…so the straight through concept applies…and the provision for these conductors going through the eaves is also provided for as I stated previously.
However, service conductors running in and through a building as shown as considered being installed not at the nearest point of entry and certainly not outside and indeed you have a specified amount of unprotected conductors installed in the building…so defect…well you can judge that, violation of an evolved safety code…yes…was it compliant at the time it was installed I can’t tell you ( I am not an NEC Historian) but should it be noted…Indeed as the moment something happens a judge (and me as the expert witness for the prosecution) will explain why my client should have known about it before the purchase and left the “BUYING” decision up to my client with knowledge of what they are buying…not mentioning it leaves a nice void in that process for negligence in my opinion.
As stated, typically the service conductors are only afforded the overload portion of overcurrent protection as the short circuit or ground fault component is not a product of the line side of the service equipment.
Just some thoughts…
I like how you think fella…:mrgreen:
Thanks for the comments guys.
