ECN Forum Forums Photo Discussion Forums Violation Photo Forum DIY Service

Ron:
It's not a definite 'no-no'; permission is required. PS is still funny about that. Used to be 'to prevent unauthorized access to energized conductors, BEFORE the meter'.

A call to one of the PS Wiring Inspectors, and a quick site visit will get 'permission' if the condulet is the logical way to go.

John

Can't blame the POCO for not wanting to get robbed by a customer :-)

Ok, I agree that it looks bad but is there a code violation? I don't see one. I am guessing that the guy used a "liquidtite" connector becasue of the name, but they also used a FA before the connector. Odd yes, violation, don't think so. Just odd.

VA:
Based on the pics, and the comments above I THINK it's a FA to a straight ST Conn to a little pc of ST to the ST 90.

Violation?? Sorry to say there's nothing I could write a 'RED" for. Workmanship is not a 'RED" offense in NJ

ALAN:

As I described the meter end of the raceway, is that how it is?? Or, is that a pc of PVC btwn straight & 90??

John

[This message has been edited by HotLine1 (edited 08-18-2006).]

Alan, why did you tag it for the fittings?

There was no seal tite going into the fitting. The nonmetallic connector was jammed into the 90' fitting.
NEC 110.3(B) applies.
Alan--
N.J electrician mentioned the key. They should have used a meter socket with a top hub and saved two of the 90's

I have to say that when I zoom in on those fittings here is what I see from left to right.

PVC Female adapter, liquidtight straight connector with lock nut, a very short section of liquidtight, finally a liquidtight 90.

It looks ugly but code compliant in the picture.

Studying the picture, you seem to be right, it has been too long for me to remember it exactly.
Alan--

Actually there is one thing keeping it from being water tight. Any guesses?

Allen