See 250.142(B) Exception #2, list item 2.
Not sure of your point.
The section he quoted would allow the meter cans to be bonded to the neutral.
Not necessarily, the recertification is to ensure that the installation is safe and that nothing improper has been done, not to bring the installation up to current codes. However, this violation of the tap conductor rule is not something that was legal 40 years ago and now isn't; It simply affects the safety of the installation since a 350mcm conductor is not protected (at least from overload) if it is connected to a 1200 MCB and, in turn, to another tap where three different cables go to three different OCPDs (200A, 125A, 125A). If these three breakers at some moment carry at least 80% of their load, it exceeds the ampacity of the conductor (350MCM), causing heating without any breaker protecting it.
Correct, thank you. The solution I am providing in the report is as follows:
only in installations that are grandfathered in to other buildings.
My bad, I failed to properly read exception #2. But after reading the exception, what do you do in regards to an EGC? run it through the meter, without grounding it? I think you must make sure it is grounded to the meter can also,
No it means old installations that were never legal that eventually get found out need to be brought up to current code and cost the owner $$$.
Yes, that's what I mean by connecting the 4 service conductor together in the tap and from there to the loads. if it need to continue to another tap, connect the 4 conductors same size to continue the parallel conductor and gain more space for the loads.
No idea of what you are saying...the meter bond is permitted anytime the meters are adjacent to the service disconnect. The picture in this thread shows the meters adjacent to the 1200 amp service disconnect.
No I don't think you are wrong. I guess I was confused by what you meant when you said parenthetically "as many as necessary" in your last post. If you meant to do as many taps as necessary for the meters, then all good. I thought maybe you meant each tap only had to connect to as many 350MCM as necessary for its load, which would not be correct.
i corrected myself.
Wouldn't you have to figure out when the electrical work was permitted (assuming it was) and provide a code reference for the code that was in affect at the time? If the installation was permitted, inspected and approved by the AHJ when installed, isn't it thereby code compliant? That's the letter I'd write to you, especially if the installation has been functioning properly for many years.
The installation in the OP was never code compliant. By the looks of it, it seems quite likely that the original installation, which might have been compliant when new, was modifed and made non-compliant without a permit or inspection. It's precisely the sort of thing that a recertification inspection ought to flag.
