Spot the violation(s) Texas

Status
Not open for further replies.
e57 said:
I see nothing wrong about - Mr Holt is entitled to his opinion - as there is nothing in the code to say he is right - or I (and all of my local inspectors) wrong..... ;) Or at least not that i can see....
Click to expand...

By all means bond away.... I think i've only done one or two metal service raceways, I only used one bonding locknut.
 
The 99 NEC has 250.92A(3) "Each end" of all intervening raceways - not sure when or for that matter IF the current wording changes anything - Maybe while I'm at dinner ;) someone can point out where and why this wording was changed????
 
e57 said:
Because of the words "Electrical Continuity" in 250.92 - no mention of only bonding one end in that article. And it has always been my understanding that it was for simular reasons - especially since I have been required to do it on every service with two or more enclosures for 18+ years....
Click to expand...


It does not need to say one end-- it says it must be bonded and bonding one end satisfies that requirement. Now you can bond both ends but it is unnecessary.

The requirement to bond both ends of a raceway with a GEC in it is a totally different animal altogether.
 
Another one:
Ferrous (iron/steel) raceways, boxes, and enclosures containing the grounding electrode conductors must have each end of the ferrous metal raceway, box, and enclosure bonded to the grounding electrode conductor [250.92(A)(3)]. ?Nonferrous? metal raceways, such as aluminum rigid metal conduit, enclosing the grounding electrode conductor aren?t required to meet the ?bonding each end of the raceway to the grounding electrode conductor? provisions of this section.
Click to expand...

http://ecmweb.com/nec/code_top50nec_012607/

Why?
 
Dennis Alwon said:
It does not need to say one end-- it says it must be bonded and bonding one end satisfies that requirement. Now you can bond both ends but it is unnecessary.

The requirement to bond both ends of a raceway with a GEC in it is a totally different animal altogether.
Click to expand...


That pretty much sums it up. If you take Mike's graphic and use a PVC nipple instead of a metallic one you'll still have continuity since the neutral is bonded both in the meter enclosure and the disconnect.
 
e57 said:
Why?
Click to expand...
My understanding is the following:

One of the jobs of the GEC is to dissipate to ground any lightning induced voltage. This voltage typically has components at very high frequency. If you run a copper wire through ferrous conduit, the conduit acts as a choke, which adds impedance to the circuit. The higher the frequency on the copper wire, the higher the impedance from the choke. Bonding both ends of the ferrous conduit to the GEC allows the voltage to travel along the outside of the conduit, avoiding the extra impedance. Since it is important for the GEC to carry high frequency AC with low impedance, it is necessary to bond both ends of any ferrous conduit enclosing the GEC.

On the other hand, the bonding of the service conduit has little to do with lightning, and the only frequency AC that the bond is likely to ever see is 60Hz. The choke effect is small at 60 Hz, so whether or not the service conduit is bonded at both ends doesn't affect the ability of the service neutral to be part of a low-impedance fault path. All that matters is that the service conduit is bonded at one end, so that it cannot remain energized if one of the service conductors faults to it.

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
My understanding is the following:

One of the jobs of the GEC is to dissipate to ground any lightning induced voltage. This voltage typically has components at very high frequency. If you run a copper wire through ferrous conduit, the conduit acts as a choke, which adds impedance to the circuit. The higher the frequency on the copper wire, the higher the impedance from the choke. Bonding both ends of the ferrous conduit to the GEC allows the voltage to travel along the outside of the conduit, avoiding the extra impedance. Since it is important for the GEC to carry high frequency AC with low impedance, it is necessary to bond both ends of any ferrous conduit enclosing the GEC.
Click to expand...
Yes - that too would summerize my understanding of the requirement. According to some recent reading a reduction of 50-90+% reduction in current carrying capacity.

wwhitney said:
On the other hand, the bonding of the service conduit has little to do with lightning, and the only frequency AC that the bond is likely to ever see is 60Hz. The choke effect is small at 60 Hz, so whether or not the service conduit is bonded at both ends doesn't affect the ability of the service neutral to be part of a low-impedance fault path. All that matters is that the service conduit is bonded at one end, so that it cannot remain energized if one of the service conductors faults to it.
Click to expand...
This is where we differ - especially since we are under the same POCO (PG&E) who rarely installs an electrode at any pole mounted transformer location. (If it weren't raining right now - I would say go outside and take a look.) They are often fully dependant on local grounding at each service for overhead installations via the grounded service conductor. (A means of grounding that is dependant on the service itself being grounded - along with the many others on the system.) The idea the SE conductors would not be involved during a lighting event, even outside of that particular arrangement described, ignores the fact the all available paths would be taken by the current involved in a lightning strike. Since lightning has a tendancey to stike elevated grounded conductive items like over-head service conductors makes it more likely that current from a lightning strike would follow a path with the OH SE's than the building itself to any electrode - so - I fail to see your point. ;););) :cool:
 
Is dinner there yet? I dont understand why the neutral is bonded in two different enclosures. I have issues with this. Either one or the other but not both.
 
Ah history at hand: The first attack.

Submitter:​
​
​
​
​
Michael J. Johnston, Int?l Assn. of Electrical Inspectors​

Recommendation:​
Revise Section 250.92(A)(3) as follows:
Relocate existing last sentence of Section 250.92(A)(3) to Section 250.64(E).
250.92 Services.
(A) Bonding of Services. The non?current-carrying metal parts of equipment indicated in 250.92(A)(1), (2),
and (3) shall be effectively bonded together.
(1) The service raceways, cable trays, cablebus framework, auxiliary gutters, or service cable armor or
sheath except as permitted in 250.84.
(2) All service enclosures containing service conductors, including meter fittings, boxes, or the like,
interposed in the service raceway or armor.
(3) Any metallic raceway or armor enclosing a grounding electrode conductor as specified in 250.64(B).
Bonding shall apply at each end and to all intervening raceways, boxes, and enclosures between the service
equipment and the grounding electrode.​
Substantiation:​
The last sentence of Section 250.92(A)(3) deals more with how to accomplish the bonding required by this section. The performance
language and requirements for bonding each end of the raceway to the grounding electrode conductor is provided in detail in Section
250.64(E). This section, 250.92(A) includes a list of items to be bonded at the service. The last sentence deals with accomplishing the
bonding and locations and is more appropriate to appear in 250.64(E).​
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:​
The requirement still applies to services and is helpful to the user by remaining here.​
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results:​
​
​
​
​
Affirmative: 15 Negative: 1​

Explanation of Negative:​
MELLO: The panel action should be to accept this proposal. The proposal was accepted in 250.64 for the added text that was relocated
from this section. The panel statement is not technically correct. The requirement for the bonding of metallic enclosures that contain the
grounding electrode conductor applies to wherever the grounding electrode conductor is used, not just services. This section really is to
identify what needs to be bonded and not how that bonding is to be completed. The present 250.92(A)(3) directs the user to the correct
location in 250.64(B), which contains other requirements beyond just the text proposed to be deleted here and properly relocated to
250.64(E).​
Click to expand...

Second attack and death blow: ala Mike Holt

5-219 Log #1335 NEC-P05​
​
​
​
Final Action: Accept
(250.92)​

____________________________________________________________​
Submitter:​
​
​
​
​
Mike Holt, Mike Holt Enterprises​

Recommendation:​
​
​
​
​
Delete Parenthetical 3
250.92 Services.
(A) Bonding of Services. The non?current-carrying metal parts of equipment
indicated in 250.92(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3) shall be effectively bonded
together.
(1) The service raceways, cable trays, cablebus framework, auxiliary gutters,
or service cable armor or sheath except as permitted in 250.84.
(2) All service enclosures containing service conductors, including meter
fittings, boxes, or the like, interposed in the service raceway or armor.
(3) Any metallic raceway or armor enclosing a grounding electrode conductor
as specified in 250.64(B). Bonding shall apply at each end and to all
intervening raceways, boxes, and enclosures between the service equipment
and the grounding electrode.​

Substantiation:​
​
​
​
​
Parenthetical 3 is an unnecessary redundancy. The
requirement for bonding a metal enclosure for a grounding electrode is already
spelled out clearly in 250.64(E). This requirement is not only for service
equipment, which is the scope of 250.92, but also for separately derived
systems. Sections 250.104(D) and 250.30(A)(3) and 250.30(A)(4) do not repeat
the entire requirement of 250.64(C) like 250.92 does, because it is simply not
necessary. 250.92 should address service equipment only, not service
equipment and grounding electrode conductor enclosures. Also, article 100
defines Service Equipment as ?The necessary equipment, usually consisting of
a circuit breaker(s) or switch(es) and fuse(s) and their accessories, connected to
the load end of service conductors to a building or other structure, or an
otherwise designated area, and intended to constitute the main control and
cutoff of the supply.? An enclosure for a grounding electrode conductor does
not fall into this definition.​

Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement:​
​
​
​
​
Editorially delete the reference to (A)(3) in the lead-in
sentence.​

Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results:​
​
​
​
​
Affirmative: 15​

____________________________________________________________
Click to expand...
And since I braved the rain to go get the CEC out of the truck - it is still there until 2011+ for me. :rolleyes:
 
quogueelectric said:
Is dinner there yet? I dont understand why the neutral is bonded in two different enclosures. I have issues with this. Either one or the other but not both.
Click to expand...
Yes dinner was a while ago (Lasanga).... But yes - Both, especially since the raceway is not bonded - the meter is not covered by the NEC in a round about way ("other enclosure" it is typically called) but POCO's often require bonding of the neutral there. FYI - Next to impossible here to find a can without the neutral mounted directly to the can here.
 
e57 said:
Yes dinner was a while ago (Lasanga).... But yes - Both, especially since the raceway is not bonded - the meter is not covered by the NEC in a round about way ("other enclosure" it is typically called) but POCO's often require bonding of the neutral there. FYI - Next to impossible here to find a can without the neutral mounted directly to the can here.
Click to expand...

First and foremost a veggie dinner was delivered eventually ....... BRAVO!! secondly ground loops are no friend of the Cow. One ground per service please!!
 
quogueelectric said:
First and foremost a veggie dinner was delivered eventually .......
Click to expand...
Sorry buddy - lasagna here in my house consists of 3 meats, two are cows - one older than the Veal. And bits and pieces of pig..... Mmmmm Goood! Every meal must have a mother - and every year I throw a BBQ with no side dishes called "Meat fest" - attendees usually down about 1.5 lbs each of flesh.
 
Is it to code to punch a hole in the side of a weather proof panel like that ?

I think the service wires coming into the panel at that location would have to cross the neutral bar - go back to the left and up to the lugs... you get the picture.

I would have come out the bottom of the meter..down to a 90 into the lower left of the panel.This way the service wires could have come across to the right of the panel then up to the lugs.And of coarse use a ko that is already there.Much easier!
 
rcelec said:
Is it to code to punch a hole in the side of a weather proof panel like that ?

I think the service wires coming into the panel at that location would have to cross the neutral bar - go back to the left and up to the lugs... you get the picture.

I would have come out the bottom of the meter..down to a 90 into the lower left of the panel.This way the service wires could have come across to the right of the panel then up to the lugs.And of coarse use a ko that is already there.Much easier!
Click to expand...

I would also have done it different. My cousin (who I am working with here in Texas) dont care about the code. He just cares about what the inspectors allow him to do and as he puts it "as long as I am getting paid"

He feels no need to further his education of the code. I can't argue because Im not the lead man down here and he is getting tired of me pointing out NEC code violations.
 
There not installed yet. Those are feeders that you see.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: It was supposed to be funny.

If you are mounting the meter and panel outside you are wasting time/money doing it this way.

Tell your boss that all in one, 40 space meter/main/panels are like $120 :cool:

Mount one box and you are done. It's been standard practice here since 1970 something.
 
That pretty much sums it up. If you take Mike's graphic and use a PVC nipple instead of a metallic one you'll still have continuity since the neutral is bonded both in the meter enclosure and the disconnect.

If the KO was pulled and there are no concentrics,Doesnt it already meet the requirement of being bonded? This Ko is in the side and in our area would pass without a Meyers Hub since it is not in the top of the Can.
I think I would have relocated the Ko so the wire would be easier to Manage
But I'm not sure this is a Violation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top