Apartment panel feeders

[Smash]

Old building using 2/3 armor jacketed no ground conductor to feed apt panels. Of the four apts three have separate main breakers in the equipment room. So that makes those 3 panels inside the apts sub panels. Therefore a bonding jumper from the feeder jacket to the panel box will not work and these three panels would need to have there main feeders replaced with a cable that will have a grounded conductor. The other panel has cable from meter into its main breaker and bonded at that point. That panel is not a sub panel. Am I understanding this right ? You can not just make your own grounded conductor in a sub panel it needs to be carried from the main breaker location. Thus making the main feeders into the 3 apts not up to code.

 

[kwired]

Armor jacket can possibly qualify as the EGC, must also use fittings listed for that purpose. Interlocking spiral tape type jacket must have a bonding conductor in intimate contact with the jacket to qualify, which newer versions of AC and some MC cable types do have. Chances are if it is an old building (at least over 30-40 years old) and this was original it probably is not a cable that complies. If it is a continuous sheath (not interlocking spiral tape type) it very well is ok to use as EGC.

 

[infinity]

Old building using 2/3 armor jacketed no ground conductor to feed apt panels.

There has to be an EGC with the feeder cable. Since you said that it's old it's likely AC cable where the jacket qualifies as the EGC. You meant grounding conductor.

 

[kwired]

There has to be an EGC with the feeder cable. Since you said that it's old it's likely AC cable where the jacket qualifies as the EGC. You meant grounding conductor.

At one point they started adding that bond conductor just under the jacket though, because the jacket had too much impedance without that bond conductor.

So possibly was compliant when installed but no longer is considered safe either.

 

[infinity]

At one point they started adding that bond conductor just under the jacket though, because the jacket had too much impedance without that bond conductor.

So possibly was compliant when installed but no longer is considered safe either.

True but he's saying that it's "not up to code" because it lacks the EGC (and we don't know if it actually lacks an EGC). It's doubtful that when it was installed that it wasn't code complaint.

 

[kwired]

True but he's saying that it's "not up to code" because it lacks the EGC (and we don't know if it actually lacks an EGC). It's doubtful that when it was installed that it wasn't code complaint.

Is your double negative in last sentence actually result in a positive?

Lets just say if old enough that outer sheath may been acceptable at the time, and could actually still be considered "grandfathered". But one should at least consider why they changed the listing and construction requirements and consider just how safe it may or may not be to let it remain that way.

 

[infinity]

But one should at least consider why they changed the listing and construction requirements and consider just how safe it may or may not be to let it remain that way.

It sounds like you're assuming that it does not have the bonding strip that was required in AC cable some time in the 1950's. I'm not making any assumption other than it was likely code complaint when installed.

 

[kwired]

It sounds like you're assuming that it does not have the bonding strip that was required in AC cable some time in the 1950's. I'm not making any assumption other than it was likely code complaint when installed.

Wasn't sure when they added bond strip, but yes was saying cable that didn't have it was code compliant when new, but may still be worth considering whether it is safe anymore. Same goes for K & T wiring. Some condemn it just because it is there, it has less safety factor but isn't automatically going to kill someone either.