Spot the violation(s) Texas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Karl H said:
I had never even seen a "All-In-One" until I moved to California.
In Texas is was always a seperate meter can. BTW meter cans were free
from the POCO. All you had to provide to the POCO for a free meter
can was an address.
Click to expand...

You just provided the reason they don't use all in ones. :cool:
 
anatolelesley said:
i am understanding bonding is very inportant if some how the grounded conducter becomes lose on the service side a parael circuit could act in series and the load side phase with the higher impedance will draw a higher voltage bye bye flat screen
Click to expand...
And a good jolt if you touch both enclosures when you go to shut it off.

BTW welcome to the forum.
 
Well I guess all of the Inspectors around here need to go back to school also because there are numerous services set up just like this one around here and all of them pass.
 
I dont want anyone to take my last response wrong.I want to make sure that I am working closely with the inspectors together as a group effort to insure a safe installation. Is this offset nipple a point blank violation with no exceptions ? is all I'm trying to find out. It may be that these services pass for the simple fact that it has been done so many times that nobody ever really questioned it.
 
jap said:
I dont want anyone to take my last response wrong.I want to make sure that I am working closely with the inspectors together as a group effort to insure a safe installation. Is this offset nipple a point blank violation with no exceptions ? is all I'm trying to find out. It may be that these services pass for the simple fact that it has been done so many times that nobody ever really questioned it.
Click to expand...

That nipple would not pass in my area of Pa. First, the POCO requires RMC and second the NEC requires bonding on one end. Standard locknuts shall not be the sole means for bonding of service equipment.
 
I learned something new today and thats what its all about.
Thanks for everything.
 
Q10. Does the Code require bonding around raceway knockouts for 120V, 208V, or 240Vfeeders and branch circuits?
Q10. All metal parts intended to serve as the effective ground-fault current path, such as raceways, cables, equipment, and enclosures must be bonded together to ensure they have the capacity to conduct safely any fault current likely to be imposed on them [250.96(A)]. If the knockouts are damaged, the integrity of the fault current path is jeopardized and must be bonded around. If the knockouts are not damaged, no extra bonding is required.

Q11. Does the Code require bonding around raceway knockouts for 277V or 480V feeders and branch circuits?
A11. Metal raceways or cables, containing 277V or 480V circuits, terminating at ringed knockouts must be bonded to the metal enclosure [250.97] with a bonding jumper sized in accordance with Table 250.122, based on the rating of the circuit overcurrent protection device [250.102(D)]. A bonding jumper isn?t required where ringed knockouts aren?t encountered, or where the box is listed to provide a permanent and reliable electrical bond [250.97 Exception].

This is why I was thinking that the Offset Nipple would not require an extra bonding jumper if all of the KO's were removed. I didnt know it was different for a service than it was for Feeders or Branch Circuits.
 
elohr46 said:
That nipple would not pass in my area of Pa. First, the POCO requires RMC and second the NEC requires bonding on one end. Standard locknuts shall not be the sole means for bonding of service equipment.
Click to expand...
So which one do you bond it to???? Both have a MBJ. Both are service equipment enclosures.

Anyway - I would really like to know where the "one end" comes from? Nothing in the code to imply 'one end' is acceptable, (Other than a graphic from Mike Holt) or not. Especially, since this conduit or others like it will be current carrying.
 
e57 said:
Anyway - I would really like to know where the "one end" comes from? Nothing in the code to imply 'one end' is acceptable, (Other than a graphic from Mike Holt) or not.
Click to expand...

By the difference in language between 250.64(E) and 250.92(A) and (A)(2), I believe that it IS implied.

250.64(E) is the only place that requires bonding both ends. We don't bond both ends of a water pipe, do we? We are required to bond it, period. The requirement in 250.92(A) is the same.

FWIW, the '08 NECHB has a similar graphic to Mike's. Bonded on one side only.
 
JohnJ0906 said:
By the difference in language between 250.64(E) and 250.92(A) and (A)(2), I believe that it IS implied.

250.64(E) is the only place that requires bonding both ends. We don't bond both ends of a water pipe, do we? We are required to bond it, period. The requirement in 250.92(A) is the same.

FWIW, the '08 NECHB has a similar graphic to Mike's. Bonded on one side only.
Click to expand...
The wording 250.64E used to be 250.92(A)3 until Mike Holt got a hold of it in the '08 cycle.... His reasoning for moving it was to move it to a location better suited to it - for the application of GEC's.

IMO there is nothing to imply "One End"

I will also point to the wording of 250.90, and the fact that the first word of 250.92(A)2 is "ALL". As well as the wording of 250.92B - note that the the use of plaruals for raceways, and enclosures. If the meter in this case were a raceway (gutter) it would definatly need to be bonded - would it not? The fact that it has an additional MBJ in it should go back to 250.90 for additional reinforcement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top