A/A Fuel GTX said:
Rick, I believe 250.102(E) addresses equipment bonding jumpers. The OP referred to the EGC run on the outside of the raceway. I still think 250.120(C) and 300.3(B) are contradictory........
300.3(B) + 250.134(B) is the general rule.
250.134(B) lists 250.130(C) as an
exception only allowed under specific circumstances.
250.130(C) should be viewed as exceptions to the general rule.
250.120(C) is giving further installation instructions when following 250.130(C).
An exception is not contradicting a rule, it's modifying a rule when you are in specific circumstances.
250.102(E) comes into play after the required equipment grounding conductor or conduit is installed properly and a gap in the path still exists. . The equipment
bonding jumper just fills in for a situation where the properly installed equipment
grounding conductor doesn't get the job done.
don_resqcapt19 said:
As far as the original question, would there really be any code issue if the internal #4 is left connected and the external jumper is also installed. The #4 would cover the code rules and the 3/0 is not required by the code. If the code does not require it and there is already a code compliant EGC, is the 3/0 covered by the code rules?
In principle, I would agree that a 3/0 that's
supplementary/voluntary shouldn't need the same restrictions as the required and installed conductor/conduit. . But in codespeak, 300.3(B) uses the words "where used". . It doesn't say "where required". . The 3/0 is not
required but it is
used. . Plus this question goes beyond just code requirements.
sevlander said:
Manufacturer's written instructions require the SAME exact size GEC as the current carrying wires, crazy,but it's their machine.
It's required by the manufacturer and should comply with 300.3(B) + 250.134(B).
