Question about conduit entering a pedestal type meter base

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've always had a blanket policy of no top or side entries in 3R enclosures outside. I don't trust EMT weathertight seals, they just don't seem to hold up well. Myers Hubs are better but they are only listed for use with RMC or IMC. EMT fittings will screw into a Myers Hub, but a standard thread to pipe thread connection is still questionable.
 
Last edited:
electrofelon said:
I've been in the electrical field for 24 years, I would not even think twice about it. This whole "listing violation" thing is getting out of hand.
Click to expand...
Using products as they were designed to be used is never getting out of hand. It's quality tradecraft. Why is it that every time someone starts a sentence with, "I've been in this business for 20+ years ..." I know I'm about to be disappointed. Had one contractor tell me one time, "I've been an electrical contractor for 35 years and the NEC does not cover anything over 1,000V."
 
pv_n00b said:
Using products as they were designed to be used is never getting out of hand. It's quality tradecraft. Why is it that every time someone starts a sentence with, "I've been in this business for 20+ years ..." I know I'm about to be disappointed. Had one contractor tell me one time, "I've been an electrical contractor for 35 years and the NEC does not cover anything over 1,000V."
Click to expand...
Sorry, I will not consider field punched holes in cabinets to be "listing violations" or require instructions to state that it is ok. Ill bet a majority of the long time experienced members on here agree with me. I guess we are all hacks.

Clearly the over 1000V story is absurd, completely different., and not relevant.
 
electrofelon said:
Sorry, I will not consider field punched holes in cabinets to be "listing violations" or require instructions to state that it is ok. Ill bet a majority of the long time experienced members on here agree with me. I guess we are all hacks.

Clearly the over 1000V story is absurd, completely different., and not relevant.
Click to expand...
Do you at least consult instructions about locations of conduit entries? Some equipment has prohibitions. The issue isn't field punched holes, it's location.
 
jaggedben said:
Do you at least consult instructions about locations of conduit entries? Some equipment has prohibitions. The issue isn't field punched holes, it's location.
Click to expand...
So in the context of the OP, can you point to a meter base (or is that a meter main?) where the instructions specify the allowable locations of entries?

Cheers, Wayne
 
jaggedben said:
Do you at least consult instructions about locations of conduit entries? Some equipment has prohibitions. The issue isn't field punched holes, it's location.
Click to expand...
Sure, if the destructions say something specific about allowed or disallowed location of conduit entries then of course I have no dispute. The issue I have is with the belief/philosophy that the instructions have to specifically grant you permission to do pretty much anything - that's generally not the way it works.
 
I guess in this case I'm reacting to the fact that I've just never seen a non factory KO in the meter section of a meter/main. Ever. But to be fair the reasons for that probably don't have to do with what's being debated here, but rather are as follows:
1) usually the only conductors allowed to enter the meter section are the service conductors, which 99/100 times enter from top or bottom, and factory KOs are provided for that
2)the NEC prohibits running non service conductors back through the meter section because it contains service conductors
3) the utilities around here could cause big hassles if you ran anything through the meter section after they tagged and sealed it

Presumably this is a supply-side connection for the solar so reasons 1 and 2 don't apply. (I have to wonder if they used a proper method to connect inside the meter section, given the other stuff I see, i.e. the aforementioned violation and is that unsupported ENT connecting the conduit from the to the combiner? But anyway...) Still, I'd probably shy away from making that KO for the combined reasons of never having seen such a thing done before and not having documentation to confirm the manufacturer doesn't prohibit it.
 
I have seen in one meter base, the prohibition of conduit entries in any location other than the bottom. Unfortunately, I don't have a picture to back it up. As a solar guy myself, I have heard of meter base supply side connection units that fit between the meter socket and the meter, but the OP doesn't seem to show that device. I would generally agree that side or top entries above where conductors are terminated is bad practice, unless through a listed hub, but even then, Tony Diaz taught a class on how water droplets are like ninjas and they'll find their way in no matter how well you seal them out.
 
wwhitney said:
Does it? Do you have a code citation?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Code: 
230.7 Other Conductors in Raceway or Cable. Conductors
other than service conductors shall not be installed in the same
service raceway or service cable in which the service conductors
are installed.
 
jaggedben said:
The NEC definition of a raceway is pretty vague.
Click to expand...
Broad, but not so vague. Meter bases are clearly not raceways. They are governed by Article 312, not any of the 320-399 Articles (not all of which are raceways, but where all raceways are found).

Cheers, Wayne
 
jaggedben said:
Separating 312 and 314 from 320 et.al seems arbitrary.
Click to expand...
Just pointing out that informational note on the definition of Raceway tells you that raceways are identified in the corresponding chapter 3 articles, and that Article 312 is not a raceway article. 320-290 are the wiring method articles, some of which are raceways.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Just pointing out that informational note on the definition of Raceway tells you that raceways are identified in the corresponding chapter 3 articles, and that Article 312 is not a raceway article. 320-290 are the wiring method articles, some of which are raceways.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Where does it say that 312 and 314 are not raceway articles? The informational note does not specify which articles. And it's just an informational note.
 
jaggedben said:
Where does it say that 312 and 314 are not raceway articles? The informational note does not specify which articles. And it's just an informational note.
Click to expand...
The raceway articles all have a 3XX.2 section with a definition that uses the word raceway. That is the point of the informational note. While an informational note can't impose additional restrictions, it can point to explanatory material that clarifies the meaning of the requirements in the main body. As it does in this case.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top