e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
Well....."It is what it is..." (One of my favorite sayings...)Well, those of you who said the service head would have to be relocated were correct. The inspector called me and said that for the most part I did a great job but the weather-head would have to be relocated to another spot on the house. Apparently the POCO's service height requirement over a flat roof is 8'. He originally suggested that I put up a mast, but there was no location on the house where I could do that effectively. I met with the POCO yesterday and they will allow me to re-install a new piece of SE cable to the front peak of the addition with the flat roof and leave the meter enclosure where it is. 60' of SE cable - Good thing I had a few extra $$ in the job.
One of the reasons I mentioned relocation was that - I've been there before.
(I had to move an existing point of attachment up an additional 18' to a location not accessible and >3' from an operable window. Putting it beyond the reach of any ladder. Which was not an easy task and required a lift for the day. Street use permits etc. And re-doing the entire riser...)
And you nearly hinted to it in the OP - although you might not have even realized it. (And the picture on the roof was a violation of 230.24 - even though you did not put the attachment there...)
And -The poco insisted that she have her service upgraded.
No they're not, but I believe that the poco has never gone up on this roof or attemped to crimp these wires since the 1950's. They'll have to replace the triplex when they come to inspect.
If you think like a POCO Rep or Estimator, or Foreman - they don't want to 'stand' anywhere - to do anything (short of drink coffee) - they want complete isolation from the structure and especially any grounded surface. But they also don't want liability of being on a structure to work, or have some kid get access to their line from a roof or window and think how neat it would be to use it as a zip line...
Since I had my little re-do - at expense and considerable at that - I look at the (e) service as an obsolete location and design the service as if it never had one before. Then only if the (e) service comes into that plan will I consider integrating it.
FWIW I have a violation of 230.24 in my own back yard - I added a deck - which now makes my point of atachment a violation - but I am yet to figure out a new place for it - as short of building an addition or seperate structure - there is no compliant location.... I might have to build a shed, pole or tower in the yard for it to mount to, and remove a tree to do it...