Parallel Path

[A/A Fuel GTX]

I installed an intrasystem bonding terminal that attaches to the bottom of the meter socket via a 1/2" nipple and a locknut through a KO. I ran a #6 from the adjacent load center to the bonding terminal thus creating a parallel path. I know the parallel path created by metallic raceways between the meter socket and load center is permissible but what about my scenario? Is the #6 even necessary since the bonding terminal is attached to the meter socket with a locknut? FWIW, the intrasystem bonding terminal I'm referring to was brought to my attention by one of Mike Holts' newsletters featuring the device.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

IMO the #6 is not necessary as the meter can is bonded thru the neutral.

We use something like this

or this

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

IMO the #6 is not necessary as the meter can is bonded thru the neutral.

We use something like this

or this

Yeah, I normally use the type you show but I bought a half dozen of the other type and thought I'd give one a try. I'm just not sure that the connection made by the locknut to the meter socket is acceptable for bonding without the #6 terminated to it.

 

[kwired]

Yeah, I normally use the type you show but I bought a half dozen of the other type and thought I'd give one a try. I'm just not sure that the connection made by the locknut to the meter socket is acceptable for bonding without the #6 terminated to it.

I think the whole point of designing it to install in a KO is to not need an additional bonding jumper.

By bringing a bonding jumper from the panel, you created a parallel path for neutral current. This potentially over time could result in increased resistance through the connection points, I would think making sure the locknut is properly installed is the best option.

 

[infinity]

I installed an intrasystem bonding terminal that attaches to the bottom of the meter socket via a 1/2" nipple and a locknut through a KO. I ran a #6 from the adjacent load center to the bonding terminal thus creating a parallel path. I know the parallel path created by metallic raceways between the meter socket and load center is permissible but what about my scenario? Is the #6 even necessary since the bonding terminal is attached to the meter socket with a locknut? FWIW, the intrasystem bonding terminal I'm referring to was brought to my attention by one of Mike Holts' newsletters featuring the device.

Do you have a link to this particular device? IMO the #6 should be removed.

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

Do you have a link to this particular device? IMO the #6 should be removed.

Rob...I can't post the link but the manufacturer is Byer Source and their website shows the device I'm using.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Tom, Is this what you are asking about? The link to the page is available by clicking here.

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

Tom, Is this what you are asking about? The link to the page is available by clicking here.

Yes, That's it. Thanks.

 

[infinity]

Nice product, is it acceptable without a connection to a GEC and just using the locknut?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Nice product, is it acceptable without a connection to a GEC and just using the locknut?

As the Byer Source In Line Ground is made to be connected as part of a metallic raceway, the question is like asking if a conduit connector is an EGC.

Another product, the Bridgeport IGB-050, sold as an Intersystem Bond, is even easier to ask this question about. Yet it has been, and is, manufactured as an Intersystem Bond.

On the LINE side of the service disconnect MBJ, there is only grounded service conductor. The metal of a meter pan that is bonded to the grounded service conductor by that lug of the meter pan is neither EGC nor GEC.

The first half of the sentences in 250.94(4) and/or 250.94(5) states the Intersystem Bond need only be connected to the metal enclosure at the building disconnecting means or at the service equipment.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The locknut is only there to hold the device. The #6 running thru the device is the real bond

 

[al hildenbrand]

From the OP, the real question is:

Is the #6 even necessary since the bonding terminal is attached to the meter socket with a locknut? FWIW, the intrasystem bonding terminal I'm referring to was brought to my attention by one of Mike Holts' newsletters featuring the device.

And, based upon 250.94 (4) & (5) I say "no, the #6 is not necessary."

 

[eHunter]

The real question: is the device installed according to the listing if the device is installed without the #6 running through center?
Does it still retain its listing without the center conductor?

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

I think the bare CU wire in the photo is a GEC, and the real question is whether or not the connection made by the locknut is an acceptable termination for the GEC. In my case, the bare CU in the photo would be originating from the neutral bar in the loadcenter and the nipple into the bottom of the meter socket is just there for support of the device. But now we have the parallel path issue so I think I'll remove the bare CU and say the connection made by the locknut to the meter socket is adequare for intrasystem bonding purposes. I hope some of our inspectors chime in on this to give their opinions on the integrity of connection made by the locknut. If that connection is electrically sound, it would be great to be able to terminate the GEC outside rather than having to run it to the interior of the structure.

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

The locknut is only there to hold the device. The #6 running thru the device is the real bond

Agreed if the locknut is not considered a termination but then we are back to the parallel path issue.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I think the bare CU wire in the photo is a GEC, and the real question is whether or not the connection made by the locknut is an acceptable termination for the GEC.

I believe the copper runs thru that fitting and is connected in the meter base. There is a screw to tighten on the fitting. That unit is probably not listed to terminate the grounding electrode conductor in it- it must pass thru to the meter or panel neutral.

 

[A/A Fuel GTX]

I believe the copper runs thru that fitting and is connected in the meter base.

That's probably correct but many POCO's won't allow that termination IN the meter base. If that's the case, this device is nothing more than an intrasystem bonding terminal.

 

[al hildenbrand]

. . . If that connection is electrically sound, it would be great to be able to terminate the GEC outside rather than having to run it to the interior of the structure.

I'm not sure what you mean, "terminate the GEC". Are you saying the "other system" bonding conductors that land under the #10-32 grounding and bonding screws of the Byer In Line gizmo? Or do you actually mean you want to bond an enclosure with a GEC landed under a Byer In Line terminal screw and the Byer In Line only connected to the enclosure by the 1/2" locknut?

 

[ActionDave]

Agreed if the locknut is not considered a termination but then we are back to the parallel path issue.

You are attaching to a meter socket, right? If so there is no parallel path issue, by nature of the code they are required.

 

[al hildenbrand]

But now we have the parallel path issue . . .

If so there is no parallel path issue, by nature of the code they are required.

This is an important point. On the line side of the Main Bonding Jumper (MBJ) there is almost no way at all to keep from having parallel paths. Once the load side unbalance (neutral) current hits the MBJ, it is allowed, by the NEC, to travel in parallel paths.