He should have used a second LB.

I agree, it's not pretty, but I've seen worse.

How would you have done it?

Couldn't you enter this type of meter base through the top using a Meyers hub?

I assume the window isn't functional.

That meter pan is for UNDERGROUND service. How difficult would it have been to get the right meter pan for overhead service? The big box stores sell them for less than $50 and underground pans usually cost more, and aren't always in stock.

And it does look like trash too. Here they have a nice flat cinder block wall they could've used to mount the conduit to. Instead, they mount it to the uneven siding. Ugh!

Joe

It looks like there is a short piece of liquidtight conduit between the two liquidtight connectors.
Don

Where I live the POCO would throw a clot the size of a pound cake over that LB being in there... LFMC in the mix would just make em all the more thrilled RMC is all that PG&E allows for overhead (Along with most other CA POCO's I've dealt with)

A) I would have used the POCO specified meter can with the hub on the top, not on the bottom.

B) For where the service head is in the picture, service entrance cable would be the most practical installation IMO.

C) The best installation IMO would be up out of the top of the meter can with RNC, 90º sweep to the left, 10' run to a pulling LL, then through the roof, install mast kit.

Shock:
OK, I'll critique your way 'Jersey' style...

As to going 'thru the roof' 2-1/2" RGC is PSE&G required for a mast install. They also require 'permission' for condulets (LL)
on line side of meter, & with non-removable fastners on the cover.

Dependent on what's above the raw plywood soffit....you may be inside the structure?? Can't say for sure due to the picture angles.

SE Cable, may be way to go as you said.

John

PS: As Larry said, I also have seen worse!

Ok, I'll bite...

What is the code ref. for the liquidtite on the PVC?

John, It hadn't even occured to me using an LL on the line side is a no-no. Just didn't think of it. The window up there is also something to consider.

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

These are old pictures.
I had to go back and check why it was a violation at the time.
Section 230.43 before 1990 did not allow LTFC as a service raceway material. It was changed first to allow flex metal and then the next cycle they included LT.
Sometimes I get lost in the forest while looking for a tree.
Alan--

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

The locknut against the female adapter?

Yes, and I believe you could fail this for that. Also it looks as though the strap at the top of the riser is broken or not attached. As ugly as it is, I don't see any other reason to fail.

Allen

Just breezing through the pictures and thought I would ask; Can handyman do this type of work without a license where this picture was taken? Just curious. Steve

Not in California. Services cannot be touched by anyone other than a C-10 holder
This is scary it looks like this guy used whatever was laying around his storage to hang this service including square head lags.

SparkyNC:
In New Jersey, single family resi, homeowner can do service or anything else electrically, as long as he/she owns & lives in it (with permit)
Other than that, multi family (>2), comm, etc has to be Lic. EC for service & everything else.

John

Homeowners can pull their own permits and do their own work here in the Golden State as well... Panels and all.

You could argue the violations all you want, and it may even pass inspection the way it is, but I can tell you right now that neither Southern California Electric or San Diego Gas and Electric PoCos that I work with here in OC California would ever let that fly. They would flat out refuse to hook it up. They are extreemly picky (and for good reason) on every bit of the run all the way up to their meter. I can see unacceptable radius on the 90s, not to mention the radius on the LT connector, and the LB would be questioned as well. Even if they don't have to pull the wire, they have the last word.

I seriously doubt they would even hook this up as a temp service for a work site meter.

Randy, I have seen a few get denied at the permit counter here. And it is kinda funny and very serious few moments for me pulling my own permit, and having some HO at the next spot at the counter. I show all my paperwork, and I'm on my way.... The Electrical Inspection Dept here will send down the on-duty Inspector to quiz them about the whole job before or if they give them one. It's fun to watch, so I usually stick around..... (They do this for GC's too pulling a Permit for a service) If they dont answer the questions in satisfactory method, they wont give them a permit. And I have seen a few good blow-ups there at the counter because of it. I quietly applaud the Inspectors for it...

Anyway, back to the violation here: (This portion of the code has been deleted locally here)


I dont see where that Flex is bonded on both ends....

[This message has been edited by e57 (edited 10-15-2006).]