tryinghard
Senior Member
- Location
- California
I have an existing feeder situation were it appears 250-32(B)(2) applies rather than (1), in other words the grounded [neutral] conductor will bond common with all grounding and bonding at the destination past the existing main service disconnect.
This situation is somewhat unique in that the feeder is underground in GRC but not continuous because it routes through a couple of pull boxes without bonding. It appears to meet the rest of the criteria in (B)(2). For feasibility we want to use this rule but if it is not determined code compliant then we will replace it with a 4W feeder, as safety is our ultimate goal.
Q: Should I be concerned because of the use of GRC rather than PVC?
This situation is somewhat unique in that the feeder is underground in GRC but not continuous because it routes through a couple of pull boxes without bonding. It appears to meet the rest of the criteria in (B)(2). For feasibility we want to use this rule but if it is not determined code compliant then we will replace it with a 4W feeder, as safety is our ultimate goal.
Q: Should I be concerned because of the use of GRC rather than PVC?