Bonding Locknut in a 277-480 system

Status
Not open for further replies.

DARUSA

Senior Member
Location
New York City
I had an inpection in nyc last week and the inspector is require me that all the 277/480 conduits need to have bonding locknuts.( the one that have the screw in)
I try to explain him that a bonding bushing is required when you connect your pipe in a concentric or exentric knockout in order to ensure the electrical continuity of the metal raceways.
He agree with it but no matter is you make you own hole a bonding locknut is require!!!
I use only 3/4 size pipe in order to not take any chance with any of my guys for use a 1/2 inch pipe in a 1/2 inch 3/4 knockout.
Also all knockouts for feeders were made by a knockout punch for a proper size.
All my pipes are EMT and if I don't understand wrong 250.97 3 is a clear article in refer to the EMT pipe.
What is your opinion?
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
He's incorrect it's that simple. As far as I know there's no extra requirement for this in the NYC code.
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
Your basic references would be Art 250.97 (bonding over 250 v to ground) which refers you back to 250.92 (bonding service), however, the exception takes care of most issues where concentric and eccentric k.o.s are not encountered.
Note though that 250.100 requires special consideration in Hazardous installs in case you have any.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Maybe the following illustration will help clear it up.
1113921936_2.jpg


Roger
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
One side note to Rogers graphic, if the ringed KO's are listed for bonding then the bonding jumper still isn't required.
 

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
Can the inspector use 90.4 in his defense?
The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules......
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Can the inspector use 90.4 in his defense?
The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules......

He could but what in Article 250 would give him the opinion that it's required?
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Can the inspector use 90.4 in his defense?
The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules......

The AHJ can do that. The inspector is not the AHJ. He is either an employee of the AHJ or subcontractor of some sort acting on behalf of the AHJ. In any case, the inspector is NOT the AHJ.
 

JDB3

Senior Member
Can the inspector use 90.4 in his defense?
The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules......


I had been told by a former inspector (now a NEMA rep.) that If an inspector has to fall back on 90.4, their position on the issue is very weak!!!!!!!!!
 

Hendrix

Senior Member
Location
New England
The AHJ can do that. The inspector is not the AHJ. He is either an employee of the AHJ or subcontractor of some sort acting on behalf of the AHJ. In any case, the inspector is NOT the AHJ.
Yes but, his supervisor can designate him the AHJ. Often times the inspector knows more than his boss :happyyes:
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Yes but, his supervisor can designate him the AHJ. Often times the inspector knows more than his boss :happyyes:

The supervisor is not the AHJ either. the AHJ is the entity that has the authority, generally given by law for our purposes. It may be the state EC board, or a building dept, but is NEVER an individual.

In practice, it may seem like there is no difference becasue the individual is who you are dealing with.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
There is no local amendment in the NYC electrical code to require this. Here are all of the local amendments to Article 250 in the NYC code:

NYC 2011 Electrical Code Technical Provisions

ARTICLE 250
Grounding and Bonding


SECTION 250.52
Subsection 250.52(A)(1) – Delete the Exception in its entirety.
 

DARUSA

Senior Member
Location
New York City
You are welcome.

did you have to install teh grounding bushing or you won the argument?

I don't know yet because inspector come a little late and it was no way that he inspect the building in a short period of time!!!!!
But before he left I did show him the section , we read it and he says that he will talk to his boss in refer to it. I was pretty sure of my statement but you never know, he look as a very knolege guy. I like him because no matter that we argue on this he was doing what he thought was correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top