Inspector correct or not????

Status
Not open for further replies.
chevyx92 said:
250.102(E) allows up to 6ft not anymore.
Click to expand...

The exception allow longer lengths

Exception: An equipment bonding jumper longer than 1.8 m (6 ft) shall be permitted at outside pole locations for the purpose of bonding or grounding isolated sections of metal raceways or elbows installed in exposed risers of metal conduit or other metal raceway.
 
RUWired said:
The exception allow longer lengths

Exception: An equipment bonding jumper longer than 1.8 m (6 ft) shall be permitted at outside pole locations for the purpose of bonding or grounding isolated sections of metal raceways or elbows installed in exposed risers of metal conduit or other metal raceway.
Click to expand...

Yeah but is on the side of a building "an outside pole location"??????????
 
Are you creating a new service.
If so why are you bonding to another service so far away.
I thought you would need to run a new cold water ground and possibly a rod.
Just my 2 cents
 
perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, but I don't see the 6ft limit in 250.102(E) when installed in a raceway. I would prefer the bond be paralleled with the service conductors, but I don't see a violation.
 
chevyx92 said:
Got a Tap box, CT cabinet, (2) metal troughs mounted outside. Out of the trough(service leaving the CT Cabinet) are parallel 3" PVC conduits with 4-500 MCM AL in them that pipe 30' and then enter a MB 600A 480V panelboard.
Click to expand...

If I am understanding what this installation is, then there are some misconceptions here, IMO. Before I say anything, a few questions:

Does the 600A MB panelboard serve as the service disconnect and is it located inside the building?

Is there a MBJ at this disconnect?

Is the grounded conductor bonded in the CT can or troughs?
 
The biggest issue is he sites 300.3(B) and says it MUST with the circuit conductors. How can I get around this article? Does 250.102(E) override 300.3(B)???
 
chevyx92 said:
Was on a co-workers job today where the inspector came because we were looking for a temp meter release for power on the building. Got a Tap box, CT cabinet, (2) metal troughs mounted outside. Out of the trough(service leaving the CT Cabinet) are parallel 3" PVC conduits with 4-500 MCM AL in them that pipe 30' and then enter a MB 600A 480V panelboard. Now the metal troughs are bonded with a 2/0 CU wire from the main panelboard inside. The bond wire is in a 1" pvc conduit. The inspector is citing 300.3(B) (2005NEC). Saying we need to have a ground wire in each and has to be with circuit conductors. I argued that its a "Bond" wire not a "Ground" wire and didn't need to be in the parallel conduits. Is he correct?????
Click to expand...


Eliminate this "single" bond conductor, and bond your grounded conductors to the enclosures (acting as a bond conductor on the supply side of the service).
Otherwise you will need to follow 250.102(C) ...where routed with the raceways or cables, shall be run in parallel...
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Eliminate this "single" bond conductor, and bond your grounded conductors to the enclosures (acting as a bond conductor on the supply side of the service).
Otherwise you will need to follow 250.102(C) ...where routed with the raceways or cables, shall be run in parallel...
Click to expand...

In this case, they are not "routed with". I don't think the OP's method is the preferred way, but I don't see it as a violation because of 250.102(E)
 
I agree, but in this case he had a CT can which he stated, I believe, was not bonded to the neutral (I agree it should be bonded). I may be wrong (not unusual) but addressing his specific question...I don't see the violation as stated (300.3-B) The most common and preferred way might be to bond to the grounded conductor, but, if the wireway was isolated (PVC nipples,etc.--which he may have--he didn't specify) I would think the 2/0 bond run in conduit would meet Code.
Not advocatimng that method, but simply stating it is not a violatuion of 300.3(b), IMHO
 
Last edited:
augie47 said:
I agree, but in this case he had a CT can which he stated, I believe, was not bonded to the neutral (I agree it should be bonded). I may be wrong (not unusual) but addressing his specific question...I don't see the violation as stated (300.3-B) The most common and preferred way might be to bond to the grounded conductor, but, if the wireway was isolated (PVC nipples,etc.--which he may have--he didn't specify) I would think the 2/0 bond run in conduit would meet Code.
Not advocatimng that method, but simply stating it is not a violatuion of 300.3(b), IMHO
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't see 300.3(B) as a violation of the original posters situation.

Chris
 
First, my opinion is that the inspector is correct as to the intent of the code.

IMO, the conductor in question is an Equipment Grounding Conductor, not a equipment bonding jumper. I base this on the definitions in Article 100. I realize there is some room for argument here, and a lawyer could probably persuade a jury that the installation meets the literal wording of the code. However, the inspector has the authority to interpret the meaning of the code.

Note that the conductor in question is not only providing a bond path, it is also providing the connection of the various equipment to ground (earth) by connection to the GEC.

A 30 foot long bonding jumper in a seperate conduit is stretching the intent of the code, at least in the inspectors opinion. And I agree with him. Plus there are some implications on increased impedance of a long fault path that isn't routed with the circuit conductors.

The simple solution is to bond the grounded conductor to the service trough/CT installation. Then no other EGC or EBC is needed. The grounded conductor serves as the fault path and the bonding means.

Now, some have spoken of this "parallel path for neutral current".

On the line side of the service, there is no restriction or prohibition against having parallel paths for the neutral current. In fact, 250.24(B) requires this "parallel path for neutral current" when we have multiple service discoonects with metal enclosures and raceways. And, 250.92(B) allows the grounded conductor to be used for bonding on the line side of the service disconnect. This again will certainly create parallel paths with the neutral.

The prohibitions against the "parallel path for neutral current" are on the load side of the service, not the line side.

And this brings up another point. So in the original installation, if we simply bond the grounded conductor to the CT/trough installation, do we have to remove that 1" PVC with the "bond" wire in it? No we don't. There is nothing prohibiting that extra wire as long as the proper grounding/bonding is accomplished by the grounded conductor.

Edit: So, to sum it up, yes, the original installation is a violation of 300.3(B). And the reference to 250.102(E) has that 6 foot limitation for outside the raceway.
 
Last edited:
One futher point. The PVC service conduits being 30 feet long makes me wonder if there isn't a violation of 230.70(A)(1). How far is the service disconnect from the point of entrance of the service conductors?
 
IMO, the conductor in question is an Equipment Grounding Conductor, not a equipment bonding jumper.
Click to expand...

I disagree, IMHO you can't have an equipment grounding conductor on the line side of a service, you can only have a equipment bonding jumper.

Equipment grounding conductors are sized in accordance with 250.122 based on the size of the overcurrent protective device protecting the circuit. Since the service conductors don't have an upstream overcurrent protecting them you can't use 250.122 to size the bonding conductor.

250.102(C) is specific in sizing bonding conductors on the line side of the service disconnecting means. This section is titled "Equipment bonding jumpers".

Chris
 
Chris, I think you are correct. I had never considered that before. Learn something new every day. Thank you.

Now, 300.3(B)(2) still points back to 250.102(E) with the 6 foot limitation.

So still a violation? I think so.
 
crossman gary said:
Chris, I think you are correct. I had never considered that before. Learn something new every day. Thank you.

Now, 300.3(B)(2) still points back to 250.102(E) with the 6 foot limitation.

So still a violation? I think so.
Click to expand...

To me, the 6ft limitation noted in 250.102(E) is when the conductor is installed "on the outside of a raceway". The OP stated his bond jumper was installed INSIDE PVC.
 
crossman gary said:
Chris, I think you are correct. I had never considered that before. Learn something new every day. Thank you.

Now, 300.3(B)(2) still points back to 250.102(E) with the 6 foot limitation.

So still a violation? I think so.
Click to expand...

Your welcome.

I agree with Gus, the 6 foot limitation if for bonding jumpers installed outside a raceway and does not apply to a bonding jumper installed in a raceway.

Chris
 
Darn. Okay, y'all have me there. 250.102(E) does say what y'all are saying it says.

Okay, this is all pretty distasteful to me. Surely that can't be a legal means of bonding between the CT/trough and the service disconnect 30 feet away.

Here we go - time for me to throw this back on y'all. :wink: think carefully, this may be hard to follow.

300.3(B) gives the "in general" statement that all the associated conductors including the bonding jumper be installed in the same raceway except as permitted in (B)(1) through (B)(4).

(B)(2) says that the bonding jumper can be installed >>on the OUTSIDE of raceways<< in accordance with 250.102(E).

Now.... is that equipment bonding jumper on the outside of a raceway?

No. It is installed inside of a raceway. Therefore (B)(2) does not apply. (B)(2) is for OUTSIDE of raceways.

What we have here is 3 PVC conduits installed in parallel between the trough and the disconnect.

2 of those conduits contain phase and grounded conductors. The third contains only a bonding jumper. Therefore 300.3(B) is violated.

Do you see the logic there?

Now, if the bonding jumper was on the outside of a racewya and less than 6 feet, so be it. Putting it in a conduit negates the freedom to put it on the outside of a conduit.

One last time: If a wire is in a raceway, then how can the rules for being outside a raceway apply?

RED TAG!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top