Meter enclosure violations

Status
Not open for further replies.
ivsenroute

ivsenroute

Senior Member
Location
Florida
There are 2 violations in this photo. Thanks to Mr Kennedy for pointing out the 2nd one that I apparently missed.

Anyway. What are the 2008 NEC violations that exist in this photo of service conductors in RMC on their way to the main disco?

IMG_1753.jpg
 
Bushing of course, bonding bushing if you're really picky because of the reducer, and the reducing washer being trimmed.

And while it's hard to tell in this pic, the cover may not set on there right.
 
You are going to hate me but there are no NEC violations within that meter enclosure.


90.2(B) Not Covered. This Code does not cover the following:

(5) Installations under the exclusive control of an electric
utility where such installations

a. Consist of service drops or service laterals, and associated
metering,
Click to expand...

The meter seal and common 'terms of service' pretty much puts it under exclusive control of the utility.
 
A very good catch, Iwire ...... sort of puts Article 230 (Services) in a different light :D

To be fair, though .... at least in Reno the PoCo standards do directly reference the NEC- so the bushing(s) are issues. As is the lack of a white wire.

"Code Wonks" will assert that Article 90 is not adopted, and is not enforceable. Still, I think we really need to keep in mind the limitations of the NEC, and not try to apply where it's not supposed to be used.
 
This is how our POCO operates:

Accepted Signed Cut-in Cards


PPL EU accepts signed cut-in cards from an inspector with the understanding that the inspector is responsibly enforcing the standards of the Uniform Construction Code, NEC, REMSI and any other applicable code. Continued acceptance of an inspector’s signed cut-in cards is contingent upon the inspector maintaining satisfactory performance.

An inspector whose signed cut-in cards are accepted by PPL EU may inspect in any region or area of PPL EU
Click to expand...

Multiple Inspections


When PPL EU receives a cut-in card specifying NEC violations at a premises, PPL EU requires the customer or customer's contractor to:

*

correct the situation, and
*

secure the services of the same inspector who issued the violation card to re-inspect the corrected facilities.

Re-inspection by another inspector is acceptable to PPL EU only if the original inspector is unavailable due to illness or other unforeseen circumstances, and the customer requires immediate service.

Unsatisfactory Performance of a Code Official (Inspector)


When PPL EU personnel discover NEC or REMSI violations for service entrance facilities after PPL EU has received a cut-in card, a letter may be sent to the Code Official (Inspector).

The letter shall:

*

explain the problem(s) with the service entrance facilities discovered by PPL EU personnel,
*

ask the inspector to contact the electrician or customer and arrange to correct the problem(s), and
*

ask the inspector to re-inspect the corrected service entrance facilities and send a new cut-in card to PPL EU.

If the frequency or severity of violations indicates that the inspector is either:

*

not looking at all services for which PPL EU received cut-in cards, or
*

not adequately ensuring that the requirements of the NEC or REMSI are met, a complaint may be made to the Field Operations Manager at the Department of Labor and Industry for investigation. The complaint form and address for the Field Operations Manager may be found at:
Click to expand...
 
Interesting yet still the NEC itself says it does not apply to that metering.

I saw nothing in the quoted text that says to extend any code into areas they do not apply.

You would not provide a cut in card for an NEC violation, say improper GES etc, but technically that meter socket is invisible to the NEC.
 
Things that I notice:

* The reducer washer shouldn't have been trimmed as it would be modified and no longer listed.
* Debris in the bottom of the panel needs cleaned out.
* Electrical tape on the conductors as a means of reducing abrasion (shouldn't a plasic insert be installed on the conduit?)
* Bonding bushing should be used.
* Rusty conduit should be cleaned and zinc rich paint applied.
* Conduit not installed square to panel or panel/conduit not level. Something is caddywampus.

Jason
 
iwire said:
You are going to hate me but there are no NEC violations within that meter enclosure.




The meter seal and common 'terms of service' pretty much puts it under exclusive control of the utility.
Click to expand...

If utility owns, maintains and installs the drop or lateral and any metering on the drop or lateral, I would agree.

But this meter does not seem to be installed on a drop or utility owned lateral and is most likely owned by the customer and installed by an electrician or customer then I would say it does fall under Art 312. The line between utility maintained and customer maintained is fine but it is there.
 
Last edited:
lakee911 said:
Things that I notice:

* The reducer washer shouldn't have been trimmed as it would be modified and no longer listed.
* Debris in the bottom of the panel needs cleaned out.
* Electrical tape on the conductors as a means of reducing abrasion (shouldn't a plasic insert be installed on the conduit?)
* Bonding bushing should be used.
* Rusty conduit should be cleaned and zinc rich paint applied.
* Conduit not installed square to panel or panel/conduit not level. Something is caddywampus.

Jason
Click to expand...

Remind me to never do an installation in any area that you inspect ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top