Concealing Service Mast - Photo

[DSamson]

I'm replacing the service on the gray house in the photos.

Many other houses in the neighborhood have an exposed pipe on the front of the building. The owner asked me to conceal the pipe in the wall. Our city requires 1 1/4" RMC.

All of the upstairs framing is 2 x 4. The owner doesn't want me to penetrate the roof.

I see my options as:

1) 90 out the wall, about where the existing weather head is. I think this is a waterproofing nightmare. The back of the 90 will dive right into the front face of the building.

2) Put an LB inside the wall with an access panel.

I don't really like either of these options.

I considered coming in that wall where the bay window juts out, the wall perpendicular to the front of the house, but I don't think it is possible with what's going to be happening inside with the framing.

Any suggestions?

Thanks

 

[480sparky]

I gotta ask..... what about the meter?

It also looks like you may have some clearance issues with the window.

 

[DSamson]

The meter can go inside the garage and can be read through a viewing window.

I think I'm o.k. on the window clearance (230.9(A) Exc. - 2005)

Thanks

 

[electricmanscott]

I could see the concern if it were actually a nice looking house. :roll:

I don't see how the options listed are allowed per NEC.

 

[SiddMartin]

am i missing something? How come I don't see any SE wire from the tap point? where does it go to the meter?

 

[DSamson]

Re: the "nice house" comment:
I tried to explain that gently to the owner.

"We'll you don't want to over-improve the property relative to its neighbors.". No luck.

The existing service is old braided cloth NM. It goes inside the wall to the meter.

 

[benaround]

I don't see how the proposed service complies with 230.70(A)(1) and 230.6 for starters.

 

[ItsHot]

lateral

lateral

Do a service lateral, that'll hide the mast!!:smile:

 

[stars13bars2]

If you just give him the price for a surface mounted service, and then double or triple it for recessed, you will never even have to figure out how to do the recessed version.

 

[SiddMartin]

If you just give him the price for a surface mounted service, and then double or triple it for recessed, you will never even have to figure out how to do the recessed version.

that is good.

 

[pdmtn]

Will the power company allow you to cover the conductor on the line side of the Meter to be cover by the wall or cornish overhang ???? In our area the riser even if its in conduit it has to be visible.

 

[480sparky]

Will the power company allow you to cover the conductor on the line side of the Meter to be cover by the wall or cornish overhang ???? In our area the riser even if its in conduit it has to be visible.

Same here. They want to see 100% of it before the meter.

 

[Cow]

I see my options as:

1) 90 out the wall, about where the existing weather head is. I think this is a waterproofing nightmare. The back of the 90 will dive right into the front face of the building.

2) Put an LB inside the wall with an access panel.

I don't really like either of these options.

Any suggestions?

3) This thing looks like a huge pain in the ***, but it fits the bill. Oz-Gedney #9-125

 

[DSamson]

I don't see how the proposed service complies with 230.70(A)(1) and 230.6 for starters.

Thanks for checking my work, I appreciate the input.

In the 2005 Handbook: 230.70(A)

"No maximum distance is specified from the point of entrance
of service conductors to a readily accessible location for the
installation of a service disconnecting means. The authority
enforcing this Code has the responsibility for, and is charged
with, making the decision as to how far inside the building
the service-entrance conductors are allowed to travel to the
service disconnecting means."

In this city, they customarily allow 25 feet of unfused conductors inside the building. It's not written anywhere, but that's the practice.

Does that address the problem you were thinking of?

Thanks

 

[TOOL_5150]

Thanks for checking my work, I appreciate the input.

In the 2005 Handbook: 230.70(A)

"No maximum distance is specified from the point of entrance
of service conductors to a readily accessible location for the
installation of a service disconnecting means. The authority
enforcing this Code has the responsibility for, and is charged
with, making the decision as to how far inside the building
the service-entrance conductors are allowed to travel to the
service disconnecting means."

In this city, they customarily allow 25 feet of unfused conductors inside the building. It's not written anywhere, but that's the practice.

Does that address the problem you were thinking of?

Thanks

San francisco practically is its own economy. They have their own rules and regulations san francisco [city] is in san francisco county.

Being local, and have worked in SF myself. I think e57 posted some of the ammendments they have just for electrical work.

JMO - that city is nuts. :grin:

~Matt

 

[TOOL_5150]

Oh, anyway, mypoint is that most of the guys here see 25' of unfused conductors in a building as not permitted, even though we see it as normal.

I personally would run pipe on the outside.

~Matt

 

[electricmanscott]

Oh, anyway, mypoint is that most of the guys here see 25' of unfused conductors in a building as not permitted, even though we see it as normal.

I personally would run pipe on the outside.

~Matt

It's not that we see it as not permitted, it's the NEC does not permit it. That's what makes us see it that way.

If local rules allow it and the customer wants it it is up to us as pros to make it happen.

 

[TOOL_5150]

It's not that we see it as not permitted, it's the NEC does not permit it. That's what makes us see it that way.

If local rules allow it and the customer wants it it is up to us as pros to make it happen.

This is a much more clear representation of what I said. Thanks

~Matt