NEC 2011 Service Entrance with disconect grounding/bonding

[jasonziegler]

Hello

This is my first post. I am a newly licenced electrician. I have been doing Plumbing and HVAC for around 10 years and recently got my electrical license. I recently did a job on a new atm had some problems with the city code officials on interpretation of code. I send a question to the NFPA and never got the response from them so I thought I would try here. I have copied what I sent them

Hello

I am trying to find some codeinterpretation and I am having some disagreement with my local city officialsabout this.
Our city code has the 2011 InternationalElectric Code adopted.

I recently did a job and had undergroundservice feed from the alley to a meter can that was set on a H frame outside anatm. I attached a 200 amp service disconnect panel directly to the meter via a2” zinc offset nipple. I had 2 ground rods that was installed before theconcrete was poured and encased in the concrete. I ran the ground wire from theground rods to the meter because that is were our local power company (formerlywestar energy now evergy) requires it. I ran my 2 hot wires and my neutralwires to the service disconnect panel and bonded the service disconnect withthe bonding screw provided. This is were the issue came up. I was told by mycity officials that I have to ground the service disconnect panel to the groundwire to the meter or a separate ground rod to the service disconnect. My understanding of the code thatthis would be classified as Paralleling the neutral. They required me to run aground wire from the service disconnect panel to and attached it to the groundwire below the meter can.

Here are the reason is believe this iswrong:

Reference 250.142 Use of Grounded CircuitConductor for Grounding Equipment

230.66 Marking
States that an individual meter socketenclosure shall not be considered service equipment


I have attached a rough drawing of what Idid before they required me to run the separate ground wire from the ground barthat they still wanted bonded and attached below the meter to the ground wirewith a split bolt connector.


I found this video from Mike Holt aboutit as well

https://youtu.be/wyPTtN6QjzQ

If I am wrong I can accept that and moveon, but I have talk to several electrical friends from other city’s that say Iam right about this. But if I am right I want to get them corrected so theyquit telling everyone else how to do it. I am the only one that has argued withit.

Thank you.

Jason Ziegler

 

[jumper]

I disagree with inspector.

Yes, that jumper would set up an additional path for neutral current. The zinc nipple already is one, but is legal and accepted.

A separate ground rod at disco that is only connected to the disco would be an auxiliary rod. Does not need any direct connection to the other rods. This rod would be basically useless but keep inspector happy.

 

[jasonziegler]

Forgot to attach the picture of what It looks like.
The box to the left of the meter is the telephone companies.



This is what the local officials wanted to make them happy to approve the service to get it the meter set.

 

[jumper]

No great harm will come of it, more stupid than dangerous.

The wire will just carry a little neutral current just as the metallic nipple does.

It is at the service. I would just shrug, sigh, and move on.

 

[Carultch]

No great harm will come of it, more stupid than dangerous.

The wire will just carry a little neutral current just as the metallic nipple does.

It is at the service. I would just shrug, sigh, and move on.

Why does the fact that it is "at the service" make it any better to have neutral current on what is supposed to not carry current? Is it because neutral currents generally add up close to zero (relative to the current on the line conductors), by the time you balance all the branch circuits?

 

[jumper]

Why does the fact that it is "at the service" make it any better to have neutral current on what is supposed to not carry current? Is it because neutral currents generally add up close to zero (relative to the current on the line conductors), by the time you balance all the branch circuits?

No, it is because we already a second path for neutral through the nipple at the service.

Legal objectionable current. Part of many services.

He was just forced to add a third. Silly. Does more harm than good and messed up the pvc protecting the GEC.