Should 100% Compliance Always Be required?

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
I believe the power company said the new meters are read by inferred means.

Infrared? Nope! Infrared requires line of site just like your remote on your VCR or DVD.
THe POCO meters work off of RF (Radio Frequency) Like the universal ceiling fan remotes do. the meter readers just hold up the recievers in your yard & read it this way.
Cool Huh?
Just wait till some hackers can ID the RF signal & send a lower meter reading to the POCO reciever unit.
 
I hear you '77 but I am pretty sure that is what the man said.

Yeah I know that is line of sight.

Don't forget this is a power company that uses copper. They are a bit different. ;) :D
 
The pictures from the original installation hurt my brain. How on earth did PoCo employees ever come by to read the meter without putting in a call to code enforcement?
 
noxx said:
How on earth did PoCo employees ever come by to read the meter without putting in a call to code enforcement?

There is a very good chance that is was the Power company that did the original install.
 
iwire said:
There is a very good chance that is was the Power company that did the original install.

Seeing the crossarms and insulators, I'd say there is only a microscopic chance they did not do it.

The transformner "pens" we had here were under exclusive POCO control, so I wouldn't be surprised it is the same all over. They did the best they could. Remember they are lineman not electricians. Looked ugly, but unsafe? Only if un-qualified personnel are exposed to the installation. IMO
 
Looks like the morning pic's with the fenced slab was modified from an original install that had transformers guarded by that fence originally? Even the meters that are there seem to post date the fence. (a few pole pigs on the ground as open transformers to much older metering if any ata all...) So low open wiring and workspace items in the first pic's should have been corrected then. Then pic 1+2 are clear violations and safety hazards....

Back to topic of compliance.... Around here from the inspectors, and my own personal opinion, is that existing conditions should be allowed only if installed in a method complying with code of its period of install. Obvious violations, and safety hazards get corrected. So as far as current code compliance, a line can be drawn, somewhere between "It was never allowed or to code", "Doesn't meet current usage", "Blatent safety hazard" and "Allowed to remain".

Pic 3, I'm assuming the meter on the right is a from a CT cabinet inside?

As far as the main on the outside, I see that as a mater of either prefferance, or local AHJ to decide, the latter being the decider to open that option. Is some situations it may not be wise to have the main disco accessible to people to shut off, like say at a bank or store where someone might want throw a switch to make robbing the joint easier. You could lock it, but a pair of bolt-cutters are easy remidy to that. That said, around here, unlike many other places, mains, and SE conductors can run a significate distance inside. This service if done in say an all-in-one cabinet would have driven the cost pretty far up due to making a pad for it and equipment cost. And maybe had a much longer down time over all, instead of 3 off, then one off...

PVC for SE conductorsor outdoors is not allowed here.

352.30 has some contraditions to wording IMO

shall be fastened so that movement from thermal expansion or contraction is permitted. RNC shall be securely fastened and supported in accordance with 352.30(A) and (B).

Loosely securely fastened? :rolleyes:

PVC IMO was a bad choice for SE conductors, I really don't see much wrong with it otherwise....
 
I think that PVC is fine for service conductors, although I use common sense when deciding where to use it. The POCO's around here require sch.80 PVC for the vertical on a underground SE feed. I wouldn't use it in a parking lot, but I'll use it just about anywhere else.
steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top