250.96 (a)

Status
Not open for further replies.
ivsenroute said:
This is a retrofit and being completely field wired for operation with remote i/o racks. As I stated, both doors have devices on them. FYI, the devices are 120v. There are studs for grounding at the base of the doors near the hinge. There is not a bonding wire connected to the studs.

You can bash but it is suppose to be bonded. That stud is not there for looks. I know, I once installed and worked on many of these cabinets.
Click to expand...

You did NOT mention the stud was present on the door in your OP.

That's changes the situation completely.

You need to give complete details. We can only base our answers on what was presented.
 
nhfire77 said:
You did NOT mention the stud was present on the door in your OP.

That's changes the situation completely.

You need to give complete details. We can only base our answers on what was presented.
Click to expand...

I do not see that makes a bit of difference, to me that is the same as saying I must always ground a 4" square with a wire because it has a tapped hole for a grounding screw.
 
My point was, in the original situation where there was no ground lug:

The cabinet is listed and did not have a lug (or a threaded screw hole for grounding in the case of a box) so I don't have to bond it.

With a 4 sq box, if it is already firmly bonded by another means then you dont need to bond it at the screw hole. I know its bonded by the EMT etc.

The OP supposed upon us that the cabinet door had no lug and was not bonded even when on its hinges. I say it is bonded on its hinges if there is no lug in a listed cabinet.
 
nhfire77 said:
My point was, in the original situation where there was no ground lug:

The cabinet is listed and did not have a lug (or a threaded screw hole for grounding in the case of a box) so I don't have to bond it.

With a 4 sq box, if it is already firmly bonded by another means then you dont need to bond it at the screw hole. I know its bonded by the EMT etc.

The OP supposed upon us that the cabinet door had no lug and was not bonded even when on its hinges. I say it is bonded on its hinges if there is no lug in a listed cabinet.
Click to expand...

I still say the presence of a stud for a lug or even a lug makes no difference at all.
 
iwire said:
I still say the presence of a stud for a lug or even a lug makes no difference at all.
Click to expand...

Too bad we cannot see the install manual of this. I wonder if this is mentioned.

Some of the cabinets I install with a lug plainly state it must be bonded.

That part isnt as important as the fact that 12 #12 THWN easily fit into 3/4" RMC (maybe not easy, but compliant)
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
I would say no, you did not have any right or justification for that.
Click to expand...

501.15(C)(6) There is always more to the story. You immediately assumed no and there are variables. When the conduit seal is not specifically labeled to be used above 25%.
 
ivsenroute said:
501.15(C)(6) There is always more to the story. You immediately assumed no and there are variables.
Click to expand...
If you are going to ask a question make it a complete question with all the variables otherwise the question will be answered based on the way you worded it.
ivsenroute said:
When the conduit seal is not specifically labeled to be used above 25%.
Click to expand...
In reality you've been searching for this way out for hours haven't you? :roll:

You should probably contact the person you issued the violation to an apologize.

Roger
 
ivsenroute said:
501.15(C)(6) There is always more to the story. You immediately assumed no and there are variables.
Click to expand...

OK then you have a reason.

Maybe you should word your question bit better.

Then I suppose I had no right to fail an installation that had 12 #12 THWN wires in 3/4" RMC because it exceeded the fill requirments?
Click to expand...

Because that was very poorly worded if there was special considerations involved.
 
Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. My point is that not everything is as it appears and there is another side to the story. We sometimes jump to conclusion, both inspectors and ECs and sometimes we have to sit back and take a look from another angle.

As far as the reference to 501.15 is concerned, I am on my 3rd fuel island facility in less than a year and did not realize that this even existed until this one. Luckily the other 2 installations were spec'd out with spare conduits and conduit fill was not an issue.

Electrical work can be very complicated and many sections of the code can be interpreted different ways. Like this example I used intentionally, there are often codes that apply which may not be in the same section as where they should appear.

This is a great example. Maybe a footnote would work better in the section about conduit fill and in Ch 9.
 
one of the last control panel I did was suppose to be 18k the name plate said it was.
It showed up with a 10k main, 5k distribution block, 5k fuss holders, and wagos to land are motor leads (5k)
UL just approves the design they don't inspect the unit. My inspector caught that and was correct. 2 days to fix it.
Another UL listed unit on the same job didn't work at all, inputs were output and output were inputs.
Just because it says UL don't mean its right.
All the doors were grounded though. they got that right.
 
RETRAINDAILY said:
UL just approves the design they don't inspect the unit.
Click to expand...
For most UL508A panel shops, UL does perform regular spot checks of the assembly location, they do not just look at the drawings. Hopefully UL was notified of this situation.

Another UL listed unit on the same job didn't work at all, inputs were output and output were inputs.
Just because it says UL don't mean its right.
Click to expand...
You are correct, UL does not normally check the performance or design of a control panel, they normally are only concerned with the parts used and how they are assembled.
 
jim dungar said:
For most UL508A panel shops, UL does perform regular spot checks of the assembly location, they do not just look at the drawings. Hopefully UL was notified of this situation.
Click to expand...

It was part of convoying system and the panel was subbed out to a ul508 shop I notified the conveyor manufacture.
with a nice fat BILL
 
K2500 said:
Wagos on a motor? Is this common practice somewhere? What type of occupancy?
Click to expand...

NO anyone in are company does that they would be FIRED immediately if not sooner.
But it is ul listed so I left the wires long enough to reach the inverters and as soon as we get a final there coming out!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top