501.30 Grounding and Bonding, Class 1 Division 1 and 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

kcaf2000

Member
Location
Houston
The project being worked is a class 1, division 2 area. The wiring method is with type TC-ER cable. 501.30(A) states that "bonding jumpers with proper fittings or other approved means of bonding shall be used. Such means of bonding shall apply to all intervening raceways, fittings, boxes, enclosures and so forth". The section also refers you to 250.100 which refers you to 250.92. My question; When using type TC-ER cable methods do the cable gland fittings (CGBs) need to be installed with a bonding bushing and jumper to the ground?
 

kcaf2000

Member
Location
Houston
501.30 Grounding and Bonding, Class 1 Division 1 and 2

I would like to edit the information given to include that an inspector on this project is using 501.30 to claim all TC-ER connectors need to be bonded with bonding busing, this includes instrumentation wiring back to marshaling cabinets etc.
 

Jim1959

Senior Member
Location
Longmont, CO
I would like to edit the information given to include that an inspector on this project is using 501.30 to claim all TC-ER connectors need to be bonded with bonding busing, this includes instrumentation wiring back to marshaling cabinets etc.

I agree with your inspector. If you can get a hold of a 2014 NEC Handbook, it has a very detailed explanation. Unfortunately, I don't have an electronic version to paste here. Can someone else help out with that?
 

rbalex

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Mission Viejo, CA
Occupation
Professional Electrical Engineer
I don't necessarily disagree with the inspector; however, I never trust the NEC Handbook with regard to hazardous locations. I quit using it years ago. I have seen it misinterpret some of my own accepted Proposals. I confess I no longer know the authors personally except Earley, but, in the past, they have been prime examples of Section 90.1 with respect to hazardous locations. They just don't seem to have the proper "training".

Note the Section 501.30(A), Informational Note (IN) was removed in the 2014 NEC. CMP14 was tired of CMP5 stepping on their toes.

All that said, if you do use the reference in the IN, the obvious question is, "Which of the Subsections in 250.92(B) do you use ?" Only one alternate works if you don't use some form of supplementary bond.
 

rbalex

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Mission Viejo, CA
Occupation
Professional Electrical Engineer
Editorial note: My previous post does not mean you can ignore Section 250.100; it is still in the Code.
 

Jim1959

Senior Member
Location
Longmont, CO
I don't necessarily disagree with the inspector; however, I never trust the NEC Handbook with regard to hazardous locations. I quit using it years ago. I have seen it misinterpret some of my own accepted Proposals. I confess I no longer know the authors personally except Earley, but, in the past, they have been prime examples of Section 90.1 with respect to hazardous locations. They just don't seem to have the proper "training".

Note the Section 501.30(A), Informational Note (IN) was removed in the 2014 NEC. CMP14 was tired of CMP5 stepping on their toes.

All that said, if you do use the reference in the IN, the obvious question is, "Which of the Subsections in 250.92(B) do you use ?" Only one alternate works if you don't use some form of supplementary bond.

Bob, you obviously have an immense amount of valuable experience regarding the code and this trade and I respect that, thank you for you input. I have never heard anyone else with your position regarding the handbook, especially regarding hazardous areas. (it may be common, I just haven't been aware of it) It certainly seems that as an NFPA product, that we should be able to trust it!

It still seems to me that the inspector is right. I assume all the terminations are complete................ that blows!

It does seem like a ridiculous requirement when the connectors are gripping the non-conductive cable sheath, with what I would assume is a non-conductive grip, especially for the signalling cables.
 

rbalex

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Mission Viejo, CA
Occupation
Professional Electrical Engineer
Unfortunately (for me) I no longer know the membership of CMP 14 that well. Most of us got old and retired. There was a time the makeup of the CMP was absolutely paranoid about bonding. Truthfully, I'm no longer sure that's the case. All of the members that I recognize as the most concerned are gone. It makes sense in Class I and Group E; a bit less so in the rest of Class II and III but the bias has carried over in all cases.

As far as the authority of the NEC Handbook is concerned, just hang around the forums long enough to get a feel for the general opinion of some of the more ornery of us:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top