Entrance Ell vs. rigid LB

Status
Not open for further replies.
flashlight said:
Hmm, that’s not how we usually do it
but I am used to NYC inspections and not this upstate jurisdiction. I like your solution, however. I will bond everything in the service cabinet also.
Click to expand...
Yes, if the inside panel contains the service disconnect, by all means perform the neutral/ground bonding, but you should not parallel the neutral with a second conductor.

The electrode conductor may attach to the neutral at any (one) point. The meter base is actually ideal, since it's outdoors, but we're not allowed to land ours there in Virginia.
 
Hal, yes, thanks! I have put in a couple calls to their engineering department. Got voicemail, gave them my application # and contact info, have not heard back. They are notoriously slow and not user friendly. That's OK, it'll get done.
 
flashlight said:
Hal, yes, thanks! I have put in a couple calls to their engineering department. Got voicemail, gave them my application # and contact info, have not heard back. They are notoriously slow and not user friendly. That's OK, it'll get done.
Click to expand...
But they will be out next day to disconnect you if you didn't pay your bill by the due date.
 
infinity said:
From an NEC perspective are an LB conduit body and a "service ell" the same thing?

LB conduit bodies are required to meet the 6X spacing rule used for pull boxes. So for a 2" raceway the LB would need to provide 12" of pulling space, there is an exception that allows the conductor number and size to be printed inside of the conduit body by the manufacturer that can be used if the 6X dimension is not met.
Click to expand...

Only Mogul bodies actually meet the 314.28 rules. Standard conduit bodies are nowhere close. Use reducing bushings to get more body capacity? Now the NEC requires the impossible: separate support for the conduit body. I've never seen a conduit body that even had provisions for supporting it.

Service LBs are also nowhere close, but I would assume the essential difference is that they are better suited for bending larger conductors or SE Cable, when compared to their standard LB counterparts.
 
Well, the NYSEG guy is hiding in the weeds, (or to be charitable, maybe he is sick or on vacation, I wish him well)
But I talked to the guy who does local inspections. Lucky I did- He told me the POCO requires a loop for the GEC, going from the service neutral to one ground rod and then the next, which is where I would have ended it. But now I have to loop around rod 2 and come back and bugnut to the outgoing GEC creating a loop. I can come all the way back to service disconnect box if I want but they don't require it.

I couldn't find my SDS rod driver attachment and couldn't find another so I did 'em the old fashioned way--I used to be much stronger !
 
flashlight said:
He told me the POCO requires a loop for the GEC, going from the service neutral to one ground rod and then the next, which is where I would have ended it. But now I have to loop around rod 2 and come back and bugnut to the outgoing GEC creating a loop. I can come all the way back to service disconnect box if I want but they don't require it.
Click to expand...

Where do people come up with this stuff? Create a loop? This reminds me of a friend and fellow electrician who did a service in the Southern part of NJ, the Inspector made him run an unbroken GEC to the water pipe looped to the two ground rods and then back to the panel. :rolleyes:
 
"Where do people come up with this stuff?"

Maybe too much book learning, I don't know. Maybe the loop creates a kind of "fail-safe" against corrosion or high resistance at either end?
Just glad I found out before and not after I did installation!
 
LarryFine said:
Yes, if the inside panel contains the service disconnect, by all means perform the neutral/ground bonding, but you should not parallel the neutral with a second conductor.

The electrode conductor may attach to the neutral at any (one) point. The meter base is actually ideal, since it's outdoors, but we're not allowed to land ours there in Virginia.
Click to expand...
Here in Georgia, it depends on the poco, if its Georgia Power, they do not allow the GEC in any of their equipment, whether its a meter base, or CT cabinet. But with a lot of the EMC's, they want it in their meter base, and even extending it up the mast if it's an overhead service.
 
flashlight said:
He told me the POCO requires a loop for the GEC, going from the service neutral to one ground rod and then the next, which is where I would have ended it. But now I have to loop around rod 2 and come back and bugnut to the outgoing GEC creating a loop. I can come all the way back to service disconnect box if I want but they don't require it.


infinity said:
Where do people come up with this stuff? Create a loop? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This GEC loop is very common to see in NYS. It is "sort of" a requirement by NYSEG, but I never do it and no one seems to care. If I am remembering correctly, NYSEG shows the loop in an example drawing in their spec book and the drawing is labeling with a vague word like "typical installation" so IMO it is not a requirement. National Grid says nothing about this in their book. I dont know about any other NYS utilities.
Click to expand...
 
Electrofelon, the inspector for this job expects to see it, so I will do it, not a problem.
Do you have a link to that NYSEG thing? I have some of their stuff, they pay a lot more attention to primary installs,
probably because there are a lot of big acreages upstate.
 
flashlight said:
Electrofelon, the inspector for this job expects to see it, so I will do it, not a problem.
Do you have a link to that NYSEG thing? I have some of their stuff, they pay a lot more attention to primary installs,
probably because there are a lot of big acreages upstate.
Click to expand...
Yes some inspectors want to see it. The NYSEG spec book is hard to find online.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top