Grounding Site lights

Status
Not open for further replies.
ryan_618 said:
iwire said:
This EGC would have to be at least the same size as the service conductors I would imagine.
Click to expand...

No, not really. I think a person could size it based on 250.102(C), which really is the same concept as and EGC on the supply side, isn't it?
Click to expand...

I have to say yes.

Now you have me thinking about 250.102(C) now I have more questions than before. (which is good 8) )
 
Ryan,
And if this proposal passes, I know someone that will try to change the code again to at least allow services to be be bonded with the main (or system) bonding jumper at the transformer and an EGC to the service, which currently is prohibited.
Click to expand...
How would that happen?...that connection is outside the scope of the NEC.
Also, as Bennie told us many times, you increase the clearing time for faults where an EGC and not the grounded condcuctor is used as the fault clearing path. That is assuming that the EGC is smaller than the grounded conductor.
Don
 
Don't forget the original problem, people were getting shocked. Someone should check the direct burial cable around the pole that is causing problems.
 
These are branch circuit conductors, not feeders, my opinion is an EGC is required.

The idea of changing to a 480vac with EGC sounds like the way to go,IF

the taps are there to do that??

You can only bond the Neutral to the case on a service or feeder to a seperate srtucture.

Am I wrong in this thinking?

The OP never got an answer!
 
hello guys,
I sorta,kinda got confused?
Could Mr Mattb confirm the jurisdiction of the lighting poles?

If its utility is the installtion legal ? If it is, why do they recommend to put a separate EGC when the design or utility standard does need one.

What is the real job or contract of the Company: just recommend a solution or repair the system for the apparent fault (since the lights are working but has a shocking problem)

What does our honorable Inspectors, view or proposed action in this public / private problem, since the Company made a compromise of safety by unbonding the neutral.?

if what potential fatality occurs, after the unbonding of neutral, who will be responsible? the engineer or the company

Can we have an update on the story?


davidv
es
 
benaround said:
These are branch circuit conductors, not feeders, my opinion is an EGC is required.................

You can only bond the Neutral to the case on a service or feeder to a seperate srtucture.
Click to expand...

250.32(B)(2) applies to branch circuits as well as feeders.

The OP never got an answer!
Click to expand...

I think if you look hard enough you will find the answers where given in the first few posts.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
Bob,

Since I do not have the electronic version of the NEC, would you be willing to post the definitions of "Feeder" from page 28 of the 2005 NEC?

Thanks,
Lou
Click to expand...

Hey Lou no problem but it will be the 2002 NEC.

Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment, the source of a separately derived system, or other power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device.
Click to expand...

Now notice.
Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment, the source of a separately derived system, or other power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device.
Click to expand...

If the fuses at the pole are not protecting a branch circuit than the conductors coming out to the pole are not feeders.

The fuses could be supplementary overcurrent protection.

240.10 Supplementary Overcurrent Protection.
Where supplementary overcurrent protection is used for luminaires (lighting fixtures), appliances, and other equipment or for internal circuits and components of equipment, it shall not be used as a substitute for branch-circuit overcurrent devices or in place of the branch-circuit protection specified in Article 210. Supplementary overcurrent devices shall not be required to be readily accessible.
Click to expand...
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Ryan,
And if this proposal passes, I know someone that will try to change the code again to at least allow services to be be bonded with the main (or system) bonding jumper at the transformer and an EGC to the service, which currently is prohibited.
Click to expand...
How would that happen?...that connection is outside the scope of the NEC.
Don
Click to expand...

Not always. I have a hospital that I have been consulting for another city on that has customer owned transformers for the service. Why not allow the option?
 
ryan_618 said:
Not always. I have a hospital that I have been consulting for another city on that has customer owned transformers for the service. Why not allow the option?
Click to expand...

Then they already have the option as the load side of their transformers are not a 'service' they are feeders.
 
Ryan,
Not always. I have a hospital that I have been consulting for another city on that has customer owned transformers for the service. Why not allow the option?
Click to expand...
I agree with Bob, that where the transformer is customer owned, the conductors are feeders and under the control of the NEC. Also the transformer is an SDS and those rules apply.
If you use an EGC from a "service like" transformer, someone will have to look at the impedance of the EGC if sized per Table 250.122 as it would be smaller than the grounded conductor and may not be large enough to clear high level faults.
Don
 
ryan_618 said:
How can you have a feeder before the service equipment? Per the definition, a feeder must be after the service equipment.
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right you can't have a feeder before a service. :)

You can not have much of anything on the supply side of the service.

Customer owned transformers can not be on the supply side of the service disconnect. 230.82

The service must be on the supply side of the customer owned transformer.
 
As an example the Amusement park I worked at had a 4,160 volt service at the property line, from that point on everything was a feeder even though at each building they looked like services.
 
Bob, I appreciate your help on this, as I am not sure either way. As you know, I don't look in the handbook very often, but take a look at the commentary at the definition of service conductors in Article 100. It seems that the author(s) of the handbook imply that it could go either way, depending on where the elusive "servie point" is.
 
Ryan what can go either way per 230.82?

Power transformers (customer owned) are not one of the allowed items on the supply side of a service disconect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top