It appears to be that the installer used a slip. Conduit into another conduit, this allows settling, the lock ring came off so the conduit slipped down. The three wires are common to service entrance.

It looks like PVC pipe (note the raised grippers around the male adaptor end) that had been pulled down through it's locknut either by extreme settling, or by a single dramatic event (forklift anyone?). I don't think the meter can was raised, you'd have to break the utility seal in order to open the enclosure to access the mounting screws and the utility would definitely have something to say about that. If it was damaged by equipment, then 300.4 Protection Against Physical Damage would apply. If it was from settling or earth movement, then 300.5(J) Earth Movement would be the issue. If it's just sagging like crazy, then I'd look at 300.11 Securing and Supporting.

What's with the religious passage attached to your "Mike Hot header" are we talking electrical or Religion. Nice that you have religion but do you have to publicize it?

The cables, which are #2SEU are enclosed for mechanical protection and they feed up into the poco side #1, it looks like it was a sleeve that lost it's locknut and fell. We don't know anymore about this photo show they show just enough. Besides it all painted but that happens all the time, it could nipple through to its load but I agree now more with the guy who said they used line and load 100 amp cable together, the conduit fell. The poco does require a 200 amp meter on UG services, (at least here). Yea, its line in, line out using poco entry.

This is covered under Article 300.4 Protection Against Physical Damage. Also 300.11 Secured in Place. Also 300.12 Mechanical Continuity-Raceways and Cables, metallic or nonmetallic raceways.

NEC 230.32/230.43

In Calif the utility is called by the inspector to plug in a meter after it passes inspection, this insures that it is code compliant; I don’t believe the utility would plug in a meter with the service conductors exposed here even if the inspector passed it. I’m guessing the meter base has been raised by a non-electrician after the original installation – no inspection and no utility involvement.

also shouldn't the conduit extend all the way to the box bonded using a internal bushing

Both cables enter from the bottom feed and load

WOW!!! If those are 8"blocks that looks like 16" of settling. Otherwise besides conductor protection I don't see a problem.

Typical case of wall dilation (a lot of it). That's why we need to use expansion fittings... LOL

I would be curious to see a photo from about 6' farther back.

At least they painted the wires to camouflage it.

300.50(c)Underground Installations Protection From Damage

Looks like the power company didn't do there job correctly need to call them. Our inspectors can't inspect there work.

Geez, where to start, looks like it was once lower, re-hung, and never installed the proper metallic tubing and or bushings,no need to identify conductors down below because they should not even be exposed in the first place.(in the box is another story.)the installers AND inspector should be strung up on the nearest tree!!

I agree with those that said 230.50 (B).

I don't agree that this is necessarily an underground conductor...how can you tell from the photo?

unprotected wires

NEC section 230.32 -- Protection Against Damage

300.5 D

Conductors are unprotected from conduit to meter base.Also if that is rigid metallic conduit,you have lost ground due to lack of ground bushings and appropriate sized groud wire.People that do these things are not qualified electricains which is a big problem in some states.

The conduit does not run all the way to meter enclosure. The feeder is unprotected.

not a fair photo. the photo is incomplete, where is the other end of conduit, is this a lateral installation or does the conduit make a 90 degree bend or does the other end attach to a condulet.

We run into this quite a few times. Due to the rust around the hasp and the paint job it is obvious that this is an older installation, Without firsthand observation I would say that settling and frost are the culprit but not the blame. There should have been a ground slip sleeve installed in the utility riser.(Some utilities provide it, some make it the responsibility of the customer. I believe that the code calls for it where this is a possibility of occurring.) Over the years I have found lock rings which have worked their way off, maybe due to vibration or poor installation then the conduit settles to some degree. I would guess that if you opened the base you would find the ring. Our cooperative will address these issues as we come across them due to unprotected and non-fused conductors and the hazard it presents to the public.

Why 3 neutral wires in the same raceway with no phase conductors. Or are they Grounding electrode conductors?

Maybe the wire should be protected from physical damage. Who forgot to order an extra stick of PVC?

Did anyone notice that this fine application has a new coat of paint to blend in? Lol

Paralell 100 amp type SEU cables to sum for a 200 amp service on an underground service feed. (must be in the same conduit or raceway, single conductors and SEU is not approved for use with its sheath on, only a sleeve because it effects the ampacity. Jim Benson Wilkes-Barre

Very obvious violation to the cable being run, the Meter being used, the conduit, the grounding, etc... My question is who powered it up? The inspector need to be sited if you ask me.

This installation is clearly in violation of NEC (2011) 300.12 This raceway must be continuous between cabinets, boxes, fittings, or other enclosures. 230.50(A) Protection against Physical Damage 300.18(A) Complete Runs.

If the utility seals are intact, indicating that no work was performed after the installation I'm not sure why the utility or building dept. would have ever accepted the installation.?

I would have to say 300.50(C) an I don't see any type of ground. I could be wrong but that's just my observation.

300.12

This looks like a home made meter base, may not even be a utility service (meters are not service equipment); could be an outside feeder with a private meter?

225.10, 225.20, 300.4, 300.12, 300.18.a, 300.37, 312.5, 312.10, 352.30

no bushing on conduit fitting

Assuming 1000 volts or less, the exposed conductors would violate 230.50 (B). Just guessing that probably several other issues with this one. (Protection of service-entrance conductors other than underground)

Oops forgot the lock... Was probably 5 O'clock somewhere :)

Brian

first I thought that fill just settled then on further thought this is what happens when shop pre fabs things stub up was only so long & cover needed to be so much meter hight needed to be so then all looked good when painter was done just my thought bob kohli

article 338.12(A)(2). SE cable not permitted underground with or without a raceway

The violations are obvious. HOW they did it is the bigger question.

No expansion fitting installed.

I don't see a ground rod and cable

The phase conductors are not clearly marked.

Conductors are not protected in a cable or conduit