When to require bonding both ends of a home-run conduit to the EGC?

photonboy said:
. . . we more often have plastic enclosures on both ends.
Click to expand...
Now you tell us!
well1.gif
 
roger said:
You should have included that in your opening post. Why would anyone use metallic raceways between plastic boxes or enclosures? There may be bigger problems here than bonding.
Click to expand...
It is very common in residential and small commercial PV installations to have plastic junction boxes on the roof, usually under the array with metal conduit jumping between mounting planes and taking the home-run down to the equipment wall. This is EMT across the roof or metallic flex if run through the attic. Most of the systems I review are either SolarEdge, which has plastic inverter wiring compartments, or Enphase which has plastic combiner boxes. So the majority of the conduit until we get to the AC disco is going from one unbonded enclosure to another.

Apologies for not clarifying that, it was in my head, couldn't you see that?

:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zee
photonboy said:
So the majority of the conduit until we get to the AC disco is going from one unbonded enclosure to another.
Click to expand...
The NEC only requires that one end be bonded, wire EGC or not. Anything more is design choice.

GECs on the other hand do require bonding both ends to minimize choke-effect impedance.
 
photonboy said:
I work for a solar financing company and I'm currently wearing two related hats, working on design standards and reviewing PV systems post install. ...
Click to expand...

I see. Having been on both sides of this issue, my advice is to drop the both ends requirement. It is quite natural for the contractors to hate you for calling for a truck roll to fix such a minor and debatable item before they get paid (if I'm catching the nature of the situation), especially if your requirements that exceed code weren't put in 20pt bold font at the top of all your pre-install communications. If you're going to insist, then at least be willing to let each installer off with a warning the first time, and make sure your exact specs are clear beforehand. This is not something where you can appeal to 'standard industry practice' or some such phrasing; it's too debatable for that.
 
roger said:
You should have included that in your opening post. Why would anyone use metallic raceways between plastic boxes or enclosures? There may be bigger problems here than bonding.
Click to expand...
PVC is really unacceptable in rooftop installations in this area. It's been known to degrade in the sun, it droops and touches the roof, and it looks like absolute s---. (You can't paint it to make it look nicer either, the paint peels off.) EMT is industry standard. Plastic boxes on the roof are also pretty common because you don't get metal 4X boxes that are big enough and using 3R on the roof can lead to water coming down the raceway.

One code exceeding practice that *is* industry standard is to always run a wire EGC, so that bonding the array is not dependent on the EMT couplings. And installers know to install a bonding bushing on the EMT in the inverter or combiner. So we are really just talking about whether we have to bond the upper end of the raceway that might, in a fluke, get both separated from the lower part and energized. Not to jinx myself but I have yet to see that happen. Do I think it's good practice to put a bonding bushing at the top? Sure. Do I think payments should be held up over it? Generally no.
 
We and many others use "Bell" boxes on the roof. They have threaded openings for conduit. Just like an LB. No bonding bushing needed. Not even possible.
Also, they are more durable and last longer than PVC boxes.
On the other end, the bottom end of the conduit will alway have a bonding bushing as it enters a non conductive box.
As a result, if you insist on "Bell" boxes then problem solved: the conduit run will be solidly grounded on both ends.

(also a lot easier to install than unweildy NEMA3R gutterboxes.
Hides / fits better under array.
A HUGE advantage is the square opening can face up towards the sky where your installer is, not downhill like a typical NEMA 3R metal box. Less back breaking awkward work a few inches from roof surface.)
 
Last edited:
jaggedben said:
I once had someone complain we didn't have a grounding bushing in our bell box on the array. <facepalm>
Click to expand...

Zee said:
We and many others use "Bell" boxes on the roof. They have threaded openings for conduit. Just like an LB. No bonding bushing needed. Not even possible.
Click to expand...

In nonresidential, would a metal bell box be listed for bonding over 250V (250.97)?

Or is this just for the DC circuit wiring on the roof / only works in residential because they don't make them large enough for commercial?
 
jaggedben said:
Yes, it would fit under 250.92(B)(2). Threaded hubs.
Click to expand...
They changed it to listed threaded hubs (which sucks). It is the same issue I get into with Myers hubs because not all of them are listed for it.

I will have to get with a UL rep and get them to clarify some of that. Trying to get a listing for a hub or fitting is damn near impossible. I wouldn't know if this fits under boxes or fittings or if I would need both listings.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Zee
We are big proponents of proper grounding so on our C&I projects we have grounding bushings on all conducts and an EGC that hits the bushing in passing. It's not an NEC requirement, but then again the NEC is kind of lenient on using a lot of things as an EGC that in my experience don't hold up over 20 years. PV grounding is just too important to our projects to leave to an EMT conduit run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zee
Elect117 said:
They changed it to listed threaded hubs (which sucks).
Click to expand...
FWIW, I checked UL 514A "Metallic Outlet Boxes" for any resistance or other electrical tests required for threaded entries, and to my surprise there are none in that standard. So maybe it does make sense that for compliance with 250.92(B)(2) the box would need to be further listed under UL 467.

I guess that's similar to the situation with eccentric/concentric knockouts, UL 514A requires a basic test to survive a fault and still have continuity, but it doesn't impose any maximum resistance. So if you want to use 250.97 Exception with eccentric/concentric knockouts, a separate listing "to provide a reliable bonding connection," presumably under UL 467, is required.

Cheers, Wayne
 
pv_n00b said:
We are big proponents of proper grounding so on our C&I projects we have grounding bushings on all conducts and an EGC that hits the bushing in passing. It's not an NEC requirement, but then again the NEC is kind of lenient on using a lot of things as an EGC that in my experience don't hold up over 20 years. PV grounding is just too important to our projects to leave to an EMT conduit run.
Click to expand...
Why does pv grounding matter anymore than grounding anything else?
 
wwhitney said:
FWIW, I checked UL 514A "Metallic Outlet Boxes" for any resistance or other electrical tests required for threaded entries, and to my surprise there are none in that standard. So maybe it does make sense that for compliance with 250.92(B)(2) the box would need to be further listed under UL 467.

I guess that's similar to the situation with eccentric/concentric knockouts, UL 514A requires a basic test to survive a fault and still have continuity, but it doesn't impose any maximum resistance. So if you want to use 250.97 Exception with eccentric/concentric knockouts, a separate listing "to provide a reliable bonding connection," presumably under UL 467, is required.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
FFS if the bell box says it's UL listed that's good enough for me.
 
I the OP's installation what type of plastic boxes would be used?
 
jaggedben said:
FFS if the bell box says it's UL listed that's good enough for me.
Click to expand...
Any box used in a wet location needs to be listed per 314.15, so that's a given. The question is what the 2020 NEC 250.92(B)(2) language "Connections using threaded couplings or listed threaded hubs on enclosures if made up wrench tight" means. Do you have to use a listed hub? It's silent on integral threaded entries.

The 2023 NEC 250.92(B)(2) language is clearer: "Connections made up wrenchtight using threaded couplings, threaded entries, or listed threaded hubs on enclosures." So any integral threaded entry suffices, and the part about "listed threaded hubs" only applies to add on hubs.

Cheers, Wayne
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zee
My question to the OP is, if the plastic box is listed for wet locations what type of KO'S or hubs does it have?
 
roger said:
My question to the OP is, if the plastic box is listed for wet locations what type of KO'S or hubs does it have?
Click to expand...
I wonder what that listing would mean. Would it mean that the box is water tight or just that it won't deteriorate if it gets wet?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top