Low Weatherhead

**Rick Bunzel** · 09-17-2016, 01:40 PM

I was at an inspection today and observed the electrical service was coming in directly off of the rear porch. Not only could I easily grab the conductors but they were also in contact with the downspout. What was interesting is that the exterior panel had just been inspected and approved by a state inspector.

I need some ammunition for my report to state why its wrong other than the obvious. My understanding is that the service wired need to be 8-10 ft from porches and walkways. DSCN7006.jpg Help me with some code reference.

Similar Threads:

weatherhead needed

**ROBERT YOUNG** · 09-17-2016, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by Rick Bunzel

I was at an inspection today and observed the electrical service was coming in directly off of the rear porch. Not only could I easily grab the conductors but they were also in contact with the downspout. What was interesting is that the exterior panel had just been inspected and approved by a state inspector.

I need some ammunition for my report to state why its wrong other than the obvious. My understanding is that the service wired need to be 8-10 ft from porches and walkways. DSCN7006.jpg Help me with some code reference.

MAXIMUM SERVICE ENTRANCE CONDUCTOR SIZE IN RISERS (OVERHEAD)...

minimum service height above ground; 10.5 feet in residential.

Areas accessible to Pedestrians only; 12' feet

Roads, streets, alleys and other areassubject to truck traffic 16' feet

**Rick Bunzel** · 09-17-2016, 04:06 PM

Robert,

Thanks for the reply but this is on a rear porch that is 4' above the ground so its actually more than 10.5' above the ground. The problem is that you can grab the conductors from the porch.

//Rick

**Gunnar Alquist** · 09-18-2016, 09:33 AM

Is this what you are looking for?

230.9 Clearances on Buildings. Service conductors andfinal spans shall
comply with 230.9(A), (8), and (C).
(A) Clearances. Service conductors installed as open
conductors or multiconductor cable without an overall
outer
jacket shall have a clearance of not less than 900
mm (3 ft) from windows that are designed to be opened,
doors, porches, balconies, ladders, stairs, fire escapes,
or
similar locations.
Exception: Conductors run above the top level of a
window shall be permitted
to be less than the 900-mm (3-
ft) requirement.
(B) Vertical Clearance. The vertical clearance of final
spans above,
or within 900 mm (3 ft) measured
horizontally of, platforms, projections,
or surfaces from
which they might
be reached shall be maintained in
accordance with
230.24(8).
(C) Building Openings. Overhead service conductors
shall not be installed beneath openings through which
materials
may be moved, such as openings in farm and
commercial buildings, and shall not be installed where
they obstruct entrance to these building openings.

**John Kogel** · 09-18-2016, 11:13 AM

That would be a no-brainer if it had not already been approved by the state official.
Good luck with it.
Any repair to the mast will probably require compliance with new rules, might as well go for a full upgrade.

**Rick Bunzel** · 09-20-2016, 05:01 PM

Gunnar,

Thanks - that pretty much what I said. The local power company actually had a PDF on residence installations that I referenced.

//Rick

**david shapiro** · 10-06-2016, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Rick Bunzel

Gunnar,

Thanks - that pretty much what I said. The local power company actually had a PDF on residence installations that I referenced.

//Rick

When the AHJ passes a job, it is legal to use the wiring or plumbing or . . . . It is not necessarily fully Code-compliant, because the AHJ's inspectors have way too little time to check thoroughly. It is on the master tradesman who pulls the permit to do it legally--not necessarily the way the AHJ inspector tells his men to do it, in theory, but actually, fully, in compliance. And I believe the responsibility is on the homeowner to hire someone who will do so. That's why he hires a HI--so he doesn't get stuck with installations by incompetent DIYs--or tradesmen. End of speech.

**Jerry Peck** · 10-06-2016, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by david shapiro

When the AHJ passes a job, it is legal to use the wiring or plumbing or . . . . It is not necessarily fully Code-compliant, because the AHJ's inspectors have way too little time to check thoroughly. It is on the master tradesman who pulls the permit to do it legally--not necessarily the way the AHJ inspector tells his men to do it, in theory, but actually, fully, in compliance. And I believe the responsibility is on the homeowner to hire someone who will do so. That's why he hires a HI--so he doesn't get stuck with installations by incompetent DIYs--or tradesmen. End of speech.

Correct.

The contractor is responsible. Period.

The AHJ only makes spot checks of the work.

From the IRC: (underlining is mine)
- R110.1 Use and occupancy. - - A building or structure shall not be used or occupied, and a cahnge in the existing use or occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall not be made, until the building official has issues a certificate of occupancy therefor as provided herein. Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be constructed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid.
- - - (there are two exception which are not worth typing as they do not apply to the photo)

I.e., the contractor is responsible for correcting their mistake, if after the inspector 'approved it'.

**david shapiro** · 10-06-2016, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall not be constructed as an approval of a violation of the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction. Certificates presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of this code or other ordinances of the jurisdiction shall not be valid.
- - - (there are two exception which are not worth typing as they do not apply to the photo)

I.e., the contractor is responsible for correcting their mistake, if after the inspector 'approved it'.

That why NEC Section 90.4, allowing variance form rules when safety can be ensured by equivalent means, is interpreted as requiring special permission to be in writing. At least in theory. (And possibly in court.)

**Jerry Peck** · 10-06-2016, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by david shapiro

That why NEC Section 90.4, allowing variance form rules when safety can be ensured by equivalent means, is interpreted as requiring special permission to be in writing. At least in theory. (And possibly in court.)

And because it is a residence, and if under the IRC (if adopted locally or as the base code), then Chapter 1, Administration also applies as the IRC addresses electrical too.

Yes, "special permission" should be in writing, not only for the protection of the contractor and owner, but for the protection of the AHJ (to document what they actually gave special permission to the contractor to do).

And, no, the code does not specify that special permission 'shall be in writing', but any AHJ worth their job should realize that if special permission is not "in writing", then "anything goes" as they would not have any documentation which says otherwise.

Yes, there are likely some of those AHJ around ... unfortunately.