Multiple "violations"????? HELP.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

ScottET

Member
Location
Missouri
Occupation
Electrician
Ok guys, I have a complex situation. I recently upgraded my service from 100A to 200A. To comply with the power company, I followed their guidelines. They required weatherhead, RGD mast to the meter and RGD into the panel with THWN-2. The lineman approved me running out they back of the meter directly into the back of the panel, through an 8" poured concrete wall. The local inspector during initial inspection agreed. Well AFTER everything was installed, the Lineman approved the install but the final inspection failed (by a different inspector) stating (A) the RGD was overkill, (B) there was not enough room for the wire bending radius, (C) back to back meters and panels were "illegal" and (D) I didnt use Aluminum. I've done dozens of installs exactly like this before. Can anyone clarify some of these issues? I cant find anything in any codebook from 2014 to 2020 to prove me wrong.
 
I think it is up to him to tell you exactly what code you have violated. I don't see how exceeding the requirements what he called overkill is a violation. I also don't see that a back to back installation like that is a violation of anything. Last of all I don't see that wire bending space is a code issue that you have violated. It's an equipment spec. There's required to be a certain amount of wire bending space above a terminal inside an enclosure. It is either there or it isn't.
 
The only thing the inspector came close to being right about might be the bending space. But I've done several back-to-back services with no problem.
 
So monday morning Im requesting the first inspector to come out when the lineman does. I feel everything is correct, it passed Amerens inspection. So Im hoping between the 3 of us I can clarify what was supposedly "illegal".
 
Little Bill said:
The only thing the inspector came close to being right about might be the bending space. But I've done several back-to-back services with no problem.
Click to expand...

My curiosity is according to the bending specs per NEC, is the cubic volume space between the top of the main breaker and the panel. How does that translate to the "cubic inches" of that area per wire?
 
on the (B) part, are we in 312.6 (2) ex...?


Exception No. 2: A conductor not larger than 350 kcmil shall be
permitted to enter or leave an enclosure containing only a meter
socket(s) through the wall opposite its terminal, provided the distance
between the terminal and the opposite wall is not less than that specified
in Table 312.6(A) and the terminal is a lay-in type, where the terminal
is either of the following:
(a) Directed toward the opening in the enclosure and within a
45 degree angle of directly facing the enclosure wall
(b) Directly facing the enclosure wall and offset not greater than
50 percent of the bending space specified in Table 312.6(A)

~RJ~
 
I can’t figure out why a lineman is inspecting anything.
Where is the point of delivery here? At the weatherhead, the meterbase, or the panel?
Our point of delivery is at the weatherhead. We connect to a support there. Now if the support is a mast and it’s not strong enough, it’s up to you to fix it and make it strong enough after it gets torn down...
After that it’s on the customer and the inspector..
For UG it’s at the meterbase. But again, as long as the inspector passes it and it’s not something weird we connect it..
 
"Inspect" might be the wrong word there, the lineman could certainly look to see if the install complies with the PoCo requirements and refuse to connect if it doesn't. They probably also know what looks like a good installation even if they don't have other authority over it.

Looping back to the original-
(A) the RGD was overkill - nothing says you can't use better than required. (EMT for a mast????). It also looks like Amerens requires rigid (PDF pg 46).

(B) there was not enough room for the wire bending radius - there might be something there, but needs more info

(C) back to back meters and panels were "illegal" - "Citation, please"; there could be a question of where the service disconnect is (inside or outside), whether the through-wall is service conductors and where the MBJ is, and whether going through a concrete wall counts as "outside" for service conductors or not.

(D) I didnt use Aluminum - I can't think of any NEC requirement to use al., if it was a PoCo requirement, the lineman should have caught it. (Amerens appears to use Al for service drops, PDF pg 46, but they don't say that the conductors from WH to meter must be Al.)
 
ScottET said:
............... and (D) I didnt use Aluminum. I've done dozens of installs exactly like this before. Can anyone clarify some of these issues? I cant find anything in any codebook from 2014 to 2020 to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
(D) the concern with not using Aluminum wire if POCO is using it would be proper splicing of mixed metal conductors between the the POCO lines and the service drop. I've seen some still using a bug that puts both wires in direct contact with each other, so not sure how your POCO does their connections, they may not be using a connection method rated both for CU and AL combined.

ptonsparky said:
Did you use the KO provided or make your own? He needs to quote NEC articles violated, otherwise, he has only given an opinion.
Click to expand...
As to the whole thing, ptonsparky is correct for it to be a violation, proper notation of specific code Article would be needed. I can suggest a preference but if it's not in the code it's not enforceable or violation.
 
POCO has its rules - Inspectors follow NEC that's adopted by entity. Neither has control over each other. Both should be able to verify non compliant issues with adopted document references. You have to abide by both of their codes.
 
One POCO here has the lineman inspect all the way to the meter on OH services. They have specs for attaching the riser, and they verify the conductor sizing.
 
mwm1752 said:
POCO has its rules - Inspectors follow NEC that's adopted by entity. Neither has control over each other. Both should be able to verify non compliant issues with adopted document references. You have to abide by both of their codes.
Click to expand...
I agree with this,

ScottET said:
Ok guys, I have a complex situation. I recently upgraded my service from 100A to 200A. To comply with the power company, I followed their guidelines. They required weatherhead, RGD mast to the meter and RGD into the panel with THWN-2. The lineman approved me running out they back of the meter directly into the back of the panel, through an 8" poured concrete wall. The local inspector during initial inspection agreed. Well AFTER everything was installed, the Lineman approved the install but the final inspection failed (by a different inspector) stating (A) the RGD was overkill, (B) there was not enough room for the wire bending radius, (C) back to back meters and panels were "illegal" and (D) I didnt use Aluminum. I've done dozens of installs exactly like this before. Can anyone clarify some of these issues? I cant find anything in any codebook from 2014 to 2020 to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...
Get a printed copy of all the guidelines if you dont have one.
2 IN rigid is a minimum mast size out here.
Post some pics of how you entered the main panel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top