ECN Forum Forums Photo Discussion Forums Photos for General Discussion Multi-Meter Service

I can not believe that these meters where tagged.

Then the Electric service company installed meters.

What about 230.16, 36" clearance to openable windows?

Have these people never heard of trial lawers?

Oops I mean 230.9

That section does not apply to those cables. It only applies to unjacketed cables.

John,

The code does not require a main for this application. 230.71(A) permits 1 to 6 means of disconnet for each set of service entrance cables.
Don

How in the world can this mess possibly be Code compliant? Take a very close look at the second pic, top of each meter can, I see multiple cables passing through a single fitting, which BTW looks like a 2-inch EMT coupler!! And I wouldn't count on the goop packed around the cables to stop water ingress.

Finally, this is a prime candidate for what's know as a "cascading failure". One cable faults out, burning into the ones immediately next to it, and so on....

Hardly neat and workmanlike, I could never leave such a mess behind I would be too ashamed....

The Poco's around here usually do not care about the installation. As long as it's inspected and approved, they will plug a meter into it.

That POCO attitude is starting to expand here in ComEd territory too.

The last job that I wrestled out with them they were exclusively concerned with the possibility of the Customer getting unmetered power.

They couldn't have cared less about the risk of shock or fire, only that their bill gets paid.

Ah, the joys of deregulation in action....:)

OK Guys,
I can see your concerns,
But, at what stage does common-sense come into the equation?.
These cables are on the outside wall of a building, could someone tell me why they need to be de-rated, considering that they are in "Free-Air"?.
I think that sure there should have been a bit more cable tray installed for the stuff that was installed later on, possibly under the original tray.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this sort of thing is OK, it's not!.
One other thing, painters need to be shot for covering cables and thier supports with paint, ever taken a cable off of a wall and found the thing painted over multiple times and have the saddle screws tear a big patch of paint off the wall?.

I was helping my father replace the old run-under carpets-over doors-and-on molding living room TV coax. I got to rip the old one out, which the previous owners had painted hastily before selling the house. (Like everything else...)

The next day I had a can of gloss white Krylon H2O Latex spray paint, sand paper, wood-filler and a fan in my hands.

Ian A.

This is a perfect example of why code-compliance is a minimum standard. This looks like home-made sin, but last I checked ugly isn't a code violation.

The only violations I might see are 300.11(C) where it looks like the top group of cables is zip-tied to the bottom group, and 338.10(B)(4)(b) where the top cables seem to be secured at intrevals in excess of 4.5 feet. And both those violations could be fixed by another bag of those UV rated zip ties.

I can say that I've participated in installs very similar to this. Large condominiums, centralized meter banks, literally the only difference between what we did and this was the fact that our meter banks were located within the building and all the SER was hidden inside the walls.

So, does it come down to the fact that the only thing "wrong" with this install is that we can see all the SER? Because I could easily see myself in the shoes of the guy being told he had to run that SER, the real questions is:
How could it be done better?

-John