Question about conduit entering a pedestal type meter base

[SolarPro]

What do you make of this conduit entry detail?

This is a pedestal-type meter base for an underground service. There are some oversized OEM knockouts below the meter. But the installer opted to enter at the top of the box.

That wouldn't have been my first choice. I certainly wouldn't enter a standard meter base in this fashion.

But does the code prohibit this? If so, what is the relevant code reference?

Thanks in advance.

 

[jaggedben]

I might be a violation of the listing of the meter/main. I bet the manufacturer wouldn't give you a letter saying 'yah, that's okay.' So 110.3(B).

Certain jurisdictions where the AHJ is also the utility it probably isn't going to fly either.

 

[LarryFine]

An opening not below energized parts should be weather-tight.

 

[tom baker]

Lined up nice on the wall. Orbit could of gone out bottom of disco and LB in bottom of meter.
plus to make top connection meter would have to be pulled

 

[Ravenvalor]

I can't imagine any of our local inspectors approving of this even if the fitting is weathertight due to the UL listing of the meterbase.

 

[SolarPro]

An opening not below energized parts should be weather-tight.

Right. That's exactly what the Mike Holt memory implanted in my brain 20 years ago was saying.

My google search skills must be better this morning. The code reference is 312.2.

I'm flagging this in an inspection report. Thanks, everyone.

 

[wwhitney]

I can't imagine any of our local inspectors approving of this even if the fitting is weathertight due to the UL listing of the meterbase.

Meter socket enclosures are subject to Article 312, I don't see anything there about the enclosure needing to be listed. If the entry complied with 312.2, what code violation would there be?

(Last sentence of (2017) 312.2: "For enclosures in wet locations, raceways or cables entering above the level of uninsulated live parts shall use fittings listed for wet locations.")

Cheers, Wayne

 

[kwired]

I can't imagine any of our local inspectors approving of this even if the fitting is weathertight due to the UL listing of the meterbase.

So why do many of us have KO cutters and KO punches if we can't use them?

This is a field modification that is generally permissible. not using a weathertight entry method is the violation that is visible here.

 

[Ravenvalor]

Meter socket enclosures are subject to Article 312, I don't see anything there about the enclosure needing to be listed. If the entry complied with 312.2, what code violation would there be?

(Last sentence of (2017) 312.2: "For enclosures in wet locations, raceways or cables entering above the level of uninsulated live parts shall use fittings listed for wet locations.")

Cheers, Wayne

Thanks for clarifying this for me. I am far from being a NEC JEDI.

 

[jaggedben]

So why do many of us have KO cutters and KO punches if we can't use them?

This is a field modification that is generally permissible. not using a weathertight entry method is the violation that is visible here.

Making extra KOs in the meter section of SUSE equipment is generally permissible? Call me unconvinced.

 

[kwired]

Making extra KOs in the meter section of SUSE equipment is generally permissible? Call me unconvinced.

Just because you don't think it looks right doesn't necessarily mean it is prohibited. You have any code to back this up with?

That said some POCO's may have their own rules on what conductors are allowed to enter that space. NEC doesn't really care for most part.

 

[pv_n00b]

Meter socket enclosures are subject to Article 312, I don't see anything there about the enclosure needing to be listed. If the entry complied with 312.2, what code violation would there be?

(Last sentence of (2017) 312.2: "For enclosures in wet locations, raceways or cables entering above the level of uninsulated live parts shall use fittings listed for wet locations.")

Cheers, Wayne

The NEC may not require listing but the AHJ can require that it be listed to satisfy NEC 90.7 and 110.3. AHJs rarely have testing labs so they can satisfy the examination requirement in the NEC by requiring UL Listing of electrical equipment.

 

[kwired]

The NEC may not require listing but the AHJ can require that it be listed to satisfy NEC 90.7 and 110.3. AHJs rarely have testing labs so they can satisfy the examination requirement in the NEC by requiring UL Listing of electrical equipment.

True but what kind of testing do you think they would run on a cabinet other than maybe to verify corrosion resistance which galvanizing or painting, or maybe constructed of stainless steel, should be sufficient enough for most applications.

 

[kec]

Not being familiar with that particular meter for terminal connections but this would not fly here.
Seems to me this is for conduit entry at bottom only.
Agree a Meyers Hub should have been used. Just my 2 cents.

 

[kwired]

Not being familiar with that particular meter for terminal connections but this would not fly here.
Seems to me this is for conduit entry at bottom only.
Agree a Meyers Hub should have been used. Just my 2 cents.

Have you ever seen a pedestal cabinet (meter or otherwise) with a bolt on hub opening factory installed?

Just because it doesn't have one does that mean it can't have top entries? What are things like myers hubs intended for if that is the rule?

Might be rare but not impossible to need to have an entry in the top or side of a pedestal.

What about a pedestal with loadcenter in it and mounting a receptacle on the side?

 

[kwired]

What do you make of this conduit entry detail?

This is a pedestal-type meter base for an underground service. There are some oversized OEM knockouts below the meter. But the installer opted to enter at the top of the box.

That wouldn't have been my first choice. I certainly wouldn't enter a standard meter base in this fashion.

But does the code prohibit this? If so, what is the relevant code reference?

Thanks in advance.

View attachment 2561050

What about that communications grounding/bonding assembly attached to the removeable cover of the meter compartment? I see some of that sort of thing around here occasionally.

 

[pv_n00b]

True but what kind of testing do you think they would run on a cabinet other than maybe to verify corrosion resistance which galvanizing or painting, or maybe constructed of stainless steel, should be sufficient enough for most applications.

No idea as I have not read the UL Standard for enclosures. But the manufacturer's instructions might say something like, this is a Listed 3R rated enclosure and top or side entry are not allowed. In that case, making a side entry would violate the UL Listing.

 

[SolarPro]

No idea as I have not read the UL Standard for enclosures. But the manufacturer's instructions might say something like, this is a Listed 3R rated enclosure and top or side entry are not allowed. In that case, making a side entry would violate the UL Listing.

That was my thought as well. However, I can't find a single example of detailed installation instructions for this general category of equipment. So, in my role as an independent 3rd party inspector, I am fine with a Meyers Hub here.

That doesn't mean the local AHJ won't object to the location of the penetration.

 

[tortuga]

Can the installer provide a photo of the inside before they sealed it back up?
I would imagine it would need a sealing locknut and a bonding bushing on the inside at least.
I would have used a 'Myers Hub' for that.

 

[kwired]

Can the installer provide a photo of the inside before they sealed it back up?
I would imagine it would need a sealing locknut and a bonding bushing on the inside at least.
I would have used a 'Myers Hub' for that.

I think proper use of sealing locknut is to place it on the exterior side, that way it keeps water away from the non corrosion protected opening you made in the wall of the enclosure.