How to bond an explosion-proof motor with no EGC lug?

[Smart $]

When we began this thread my initial response (#3) was the motor was not compliant with Section 430.12(E) unless its Exception applied. The fact is the motor doesn't comply with UL's requirements for explosionproof motors or NEMA's MG-1 for motor terminal housings in general. Now, under the Standards just cited and unless a specific exception applies, the NEC, UL, and NEMA all require "... a means for attachment of an equipment grounding conductor termination in accordance with 250.8 ..." (or similar terminology). HOWEVER, none of them require an actual wire EGC to be used - only a "means" to do so, whether used or not.

I agree the motor is in violation... but let's use some common sense about this particular, mind you, age-old existing installation. Number one, is the motor adequately grounded [250.4]? If the answer is yes, that renders the means of landing a wire-type EGC rather moot from the perspective of necessity. I'm not saying the situation can't be better. I'm just saying if the underlying purpose of the NEC has been met, would requiring the owner to go out and purchase a new completely compliant motor going to significantly improve the safeness of the installation.

My subsequent response (#12) didn't say a wire EGC was required for Option #2 either, simply that an EGC compliant with Section 501.30 was required. A wire may be the easiest to show compliance but certainly isn't exclusive and I didn't say (or imply) it was.

Okay, but include Jon456 (OP'er) statements with yours and I'm definitely getting a conflicting impression. The fact that you neither said nor implied something explicitly doesn't negate the overall impression.

Your desire that everything be laid out in a single unambiguous location (or answer) is a prime example of the last sentence of Section 90.1(A) [2017]. (The phrase about "untrained persons" doesn't apply in this particular case .)

That's rather assumptive of you, but nevertheless, I believe you even bringing it up indicates you have a similar yearning, however subconscious it be. I believe anyone who doesn't wish Code implementation was more simple at times should have their mental processes checked. :happyyes:

I do appreciate your citing the other relevant Code Sections (although you missed Section 250.8 )

I didn't miss 250.8. I just didn't quote it... but it was not an intentional omission. If I were to quote all relevant sections no matter how trivial, I'd be posting a substantial portion of the Code.

 

[kwired]

Did the motor comply with requirements present at the time of it's manufacture?

Is there an EGC in the nipple to the motor? Code still says to use a bonding jumper to the box as a general rule, but if the box is part of the listed motor...