failing inspection due to bond on 3 gang meter can

B

bikerguy06

Member
Location
michigan
Occupation
builder
so, 2nd time this failed

1st time, we had the main incoming ground from building footer attached to the factory provided mount on the meter can neutral bar, thereby bonding the ground and neural in the meter enclosure. inspector didn’t like that, said meter can needs to be disconnected, and ground split 3 ways, run to each disconnect.

2nd attempt, failed it again with comment “same as before”

are we wrong in splitting the ground in the meter enclosure and running it to the disconnects below? in my eyes it was correct the first time around, but i’m not the inspector. any advice helps, since the inspector is useless.
 
IMG-0526.jpg
 
IMO, connecting the GEC from the rods to the small lug provided on the neutral bar would be the easiest and compliant manner.
In the picture is that a Cu pigtail sharing a lug with an AL neutral conductor ??
 
The inspectors is wrong as the code permits the GEC to be connected to the grounded conductor at any point from the load end of the utility service conductors to the neutral bar in the service equipment.
That being said, what you have now is also code compliant.
 
Good evening, the utility that services my area would also not allow the GEC to be in the meter can and would not energize the service until it was removed. This was a few years ago. Things may have changed since I retired
 
Bill Annett said:
Good evening, the utility that services my area would also not allow the GEC to be in the meter can and would not energize the service until it was removed. This was a few years ago. Things may have changed since I retired
Click to expand...
Yes, that varies among utilities, with mine, if you don't have a GEC from the ground rods landed in the meter can, you won't get your service energized.
 
Bill Annett said:
Good evening, the utility that services my area would also not allow the GEC to be in the meter can and would not
don_resqcapt19 said:
Yes, that varies among utilities, with mine, if you don't have a GEC from the ground rods landed in the meter can, you won't get your service energized.
Click to expand...

energize the service until it was removed. This was a few years ago. Things may have changed since I retired
Click to expand...
Our EMC would allow it, but Georgia Power would prohibit it. Since crimps are being used, why is it going through the meterbase anyway? It can be run directly to the neutral bar in each service disconnect.
 
bikerguy06 said:
so, 2nd time this failed

1st time, we had the main incoming ground from building footer attached to the factory provided mount on the meter can neutral bar, thereby bonding the ground and neural in the meter enclosure. inspector didn’t like that, said meter can needs to be disconnected, and ground split 3 ways, run to each disconnect.

2nd attempt, failed it again with comment “same as before”

are we wrong in splitting the ground in the meter enclosure and running it to the disconnects below? in my eyes it was correct the first time around, but i’m not the inspector. any advice helps, since the inspector is useless.
Click to expand...
I agree with the others, it was correct the first time.
If I may make a suggestion, and I hope it doesn't sound like I'm being a jerk, but if you believe you are correct, you need to challenge the inspector and ask him to cite specific code instead of just rolling over and doing what he wants. IMO it's part of being a professional having the confidence in your knowledge. Sometimes you need to do a little research before challenging. Look over 250.64(D)
 
Check your utility specifications first, In S.E. Michigan DECO prohibits grounding electrode conductors in meter enclosures. Yours may differ. I would splice them below your mains and run them up from the bottom, to the neutral bars. If you have interior metal water piping, you may want to include a conductor for that as well and an intersystem bonding block for the other communication utility connections.
 
infinity said:
Aren't the connection to the GEC required to be accessible? They won't be once the POCO locks the meter pans.
Click to expand...
If they are using accessibility as a reason not to allow it why are the other conductors in the meter enclosure not a problem?
 
250.64(D) is what comes into play here. Which I think is a dumb rule because it excludes the possibility of connecting the GEC to the neutral in a trough and using an insulated neutral connection in the disconnect. I say this because if you use metal nipples between the disconnect and trough, then you introduce a parallel path for neutral current, and the code forces you to do so.
 
CoolWill said:
250.64(D) is what comes into play here. Which I think is a dumb rule because it excludes the possibility of connecting the GEC to the neutral in a trough and using an insulated neutral connection in the disconnect.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm not understanding but 250.64(D)(3) specifically allows that.
 
CoolWill said:
250.64(D) is what comes into play here. Which I think is a dumb rule because it excludes the possibility of connecting the GEC to the neutral in a trough and using an insulated neutral connection in the disconnect. I say this because if you use metal nipples between the disconnect and trough, then you introduce a parallel path for neutral current, and the code forces you to do so.
Click to expand...
The service neutral and any metallic enclosures and conduits are considered to be the same conductor.

That's why any bonding of service equipment is to the grounded conductor and not to separate EGCs.
 
LarryFine said:
The service neutral and any metallic enclosures and conduits are considered to be the same conductor.

That's why any bonding of service equipment is to the grounded conductor and not to separate EGCs.
Click to expand...
Electrofelon nailed it above. I may have been incorrect in citing 250.64(D) for my rant about bonding service disconnects, I still haven't opened the code to check. But all the services I've built where a POCO lateral comes into a gutter and then splits out to multiple meters and disconnects always has the neutral bonded to the gutter and the GEC. Then we take a neutral to each meter, where it is bonded to the meter can by the manufacturer. Then it goes to a disconnect, where the code requires us to bond it to the can again. So when we use metal nipples, parallel neutral current is flowing all over service equipment. I understand that we have always done it this way and it really hasn't ever been a problem, but I think we should work to try to avoid it. One way would be to bond the neutral in the gutter and then start the EGC there and not install an MBJ in each disconnect, but the code specifically requires it, so the method I mention is forbidden.

If I cared a little more, I would submit a proposal to add an exception for that very instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top