A Debate between several inspectors

Status
Not open for further replies.
Take a look at 250.24(A)(1)

"The connection shall be made at any accessible point from the load end of the service drop or service lateral to and including the terminal or bus to which the grounded service conductor is connected at the service disconnecting means."

Oh, by the way I also agree with Ryan.:D

Chris
 
OK Chris I looked at 250.24(A)(1) and 250.24(D) still says the same thing. The grounding electrode conductor must be used to connect the equipment grounding conductors to the grounding electrode system.
 
The grounding electrode conductor must be used to connect the equipment grounding conductors to the grounding electrode system.
Click to expand...

Correct, but the connection of the grounding electrode conductor to the grounded conductor can be made at any accessible point as stated in 250.24(A)(1), this includes accessible meter bases.

Chris
 
resistance said:
Yet, I believe it's allowed either way looking at 250.24 (A) and (A)(1). Yet, I normally go from the service panel, so I do not have to worry about the inspector tagging me for non-accessiblity.
Click to expand...
Some inspectors agree on this article, and some do not. It's best to take it to the panel. Yet, either way is fine.
 
If 250.24(D) said "the equipment grounding conductors shall be bonded to the grounding electrode system" there would be no issue because the grounded circuit conductor could be used for that purpose on the supply side of the service disconnecting means. It does not say that. It says that the grounding electrode conductor shall be used.
 
OK. Im through arguing the other side of it. I didn't know you guys were going to attack everything I said with truth and logic.

I was at an IAEI meeting and the question came up "Is the grounding electrode conductor required to be routed to each service disconnecting means?" Mark Ode with UL replied "yes." I have a feeling that the FPN following Section 250.24(D) was intended to eliminate this argument. Does anybody have the code history of this FPN? It would be interesting to see why it was put there. It may shed some light on this subject.
 
cpal said:
Does anyone have concerns with the language of 250.64(C)(1)???
Click to expand...
No. What's your beef? :)

Buck said:
I have a question concerning this thread. The GEC is sized as # 2cu. Why is this?

I come up with 1/0, or even #4 from each panel to the water pipe mentioned, but not #2.

It seems I'm a bit behind on this one.
Click to expand...
Parallel 3/0's would cover 400 amps.
The circular mils of two 3/0 conductors is 335600 circular mils ( Table 8 ).
So, it would fall in the "Over 3/0 through 350" part of Table 250.66.

You're not behind, IMO, them fellas were being clever. But I can be a bit of a dullard sometimes too.

I wouldn't have answered "yes and yes" to the original question, either. Shows what I know! :D
 
georgestolz said:
No. What's your beef? :)


Not a beef.
But I did not see where the OP mentioned the size of the conductors to the line terminals of the meter.
Apparently it is assumed to be 3/0??


Charlie
Click to expand...
 
georgestolz said:
Parallel 3/0's would cover 400 amps.
Click to expand...

It might or not depending on the conditions.

Copper parallel 3/0s in separate cables or raceways would likely be rated 400 amps. (400 amp OCP and 400 amp load OK)

Copper parallel 3/0s in a common conduit would likely be rated 360 amps. (400 amp OCP 360 amp load max)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top