2011 proposal to 250.4

Status
Not open for further replies.
ryan_618

ryan_618

Senior Member
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
I think I will make a proposal to delete 250.4.
The requirements are vague and unenforcable. What does "quickly" mean, in the context of "quickly facilitating on OCPD"?

Is it possible to violate 250.4(A)(1), (A)(2) or (B)(1)? How?

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter?
 
ryan_618 said:
I think I will make a proposal to delete 250.4.
The requirements are vague and unenforcable. What does "quickly" mean, in the context of "quickly facilitating on OCPD"?

Is it possible to violate 250.4(A)(1), (A)(2) or (B)(1)? How?

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter?
Click to expand...



ryan,

Im looking at 250.4 and I do not see the word quickly. Am I missing it?

ibew441dc
 
250.4(A)(3) could be cited for an isolated metallic pull box that contains no splices. Is there another section that does the same thing?

dc, I don't see it either, but it's kinda implied. ;)
 
Hmm...thats what I get for not opening my book. I must use the term "quickly" when I am teaching the requirement. ::embarrased::

Sorry about that. With that said, if I have a ground fault that takes an hour and a half to clear, I satisfy the code rule, right?
 
ryan_618 said:
... Is it possible to violate 250.4(A)(1), (A)(2) or (B)(1)? ...
Click to expand...
I didn't think one could install a North American standard grounded electrical system and not have violated A1 or A2. My thinking is the mystical 25 ohm ground rod does little to mittigate any of items addressed.

carl
 
My understanding is that 250.4 is descriptive, telling us what grounding and bonding are and what they are meant to accomplish. The remainder of article to 250 is prescriptive, telling us how to accomplish what is described in 250.4. In other words 250.4 tells why, the remainder tells how.
 
haskindm said:
My understanding is that 250.4 is descriptive, telling us what grounding and bonding are and what they are meant to accomplish. The remainder of article to 250 is prescriptive, telling us how to accomplish what is described in 250.4. In other words 250.4 tells why, the remainder tells how.
Click to expand...
Right...so why have it in the code?
 
I agree with Ryan. The NEC should remain prescriptive based and the CMP should remove any sections that state or even imply performance based requirements. If the CMP is interested in educating us as to what the goal of Article 250 is, they should do it in the form of a FPN.

It's not within the scope of the code to tell us why any requirements is in the code. It should only tell what the minimum installation requirements are and leave the why to us code thinkers.
 
I will agree too, if someone can offer an answer to this question:

georgestolz said:
250.4(A)(3) could be cited for an isolated metallic pull box that contains no splices. Is there another section that does the same thing?
Click to expand...

To clarify: This junction box does not have a EGC connected to it, and contains live conductors. Say the wiring method is RNC. What section would be cited to fail the installation? The box would be energized indefinutely if it were faulted to.
 
Last edited:
I will also agree.

Isn't this where the NECH commentary comes into play?

Roger
 
georgestolz said:
What section would be cited to fail the installation?
Click to expand...

It would have to meet the criteria of one of the items in 250.110 to require grounding (bonding).

But, on the other hand, the same thing could be said for any short segment of raceway used for physical protection, as they are not required to be grounded/bonded.
 
For what it is worth, I will also agree that 250.4 should be removed as a requirement from the code.

I do think that it would be good to leave it as a FPN, as it helps to identify the purpose of grounding and bonding within an electrical system.

Chris
 
georgestolz said:
I will agree too, if someone can offer an answer to this question:



To clarify: This junction box does not have a EGC connected to it, and contains live conductors. Say the wiring method is RNC. What section would be cited to fail the installation? The box would be energized indefinutely if it were faulted to.
Click to expand...
If it has metal parts, 314.30(D)
 
I agree. Isn't that what those NEC Handbooks are for?

For that matter when I was in school we were required to purchase the 1999 NEC and Mike Holt's Understanding the National Electric Code.

Furthermore, the Jouneyman's Exam isn't about memorizing the code, it's about understanding how to find the codes you are looking for. That's why it's open book.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top