# Service violation(s)



## jar546 (Jan 12, 2010)

What do you see?  Kennedy stay out of this one since you brought it to my attention!


----------



## JAC (Jan 12, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

not much on electrical knowledge so I will take a shot. The cans are not bonded together due to the PVC conduit  :?:  :?


----------



## jar546 (Jan 12, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				JAC said:
			
		

> not much on electrical knowledge so I will take a shot. The cans are not bonded together due to the PVC conduit  :?:  :?


No, that is not an issue.  It is something visible inside the open disconnect enclosure.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Can't stay out of it, I think I see another problem. Was the lug in the bottom right of the enclosure that is attached to the enclosure field installed? Is there paint under it? 250.12.


----------



## jar546 (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Can't stay out of it, I think I see another problem. Was the lug in the bottom right of the enclosure that is attached to the enclosure field installed? Is there paint under it? 250.12.


Can't honestly say that I know the answer.  This was already inspected and approved by someone else.  I was there for another reason and popped the cover(with approval) for a photo op for training.

Another great question.


----------



## dcspector (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Yep I saw that as well Chris hope that ain't a sheet metal srew in that lug also is that ser from the line side? If not a bushing is required on that TA. Looks like somethin got cut off comin out of the line side TA. :?


----------



## raider1 (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Try 352.46 and 300.4(G).

Chris


----------



## dcspector (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				raider1 said:
			
		

> Try 352.46 and 300.4(G).Chris


Yeah I caught the bushing in my previous post. What I thought was cut of is the mounting screw. My monitor ain't too sharp this morning.


----------



## BigDave (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Just joined the forum. Been checking it out since Dec, very informitive. I may have some imput on this one, I think. Shouldn't the EGC in the open panel be bonded to the grounded conductor lug, since it is the first system disconnecting means as per NEC 250.30 (A)(1)?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

For those of us who like to read and understand what the issues may be

dcspector    What is a TA :?:

BigDave      What is an EGC :?:


----------



## BigDave (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Not sure about TA, but EGC is; Equipment Grounding Conductor. As a matter of fact, I had the same question about CT, as in CT can, in one of the other topics.


----------



## BigDave (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Not sure about TA, but EGC is; Equpment Grounding Conductor. As a matter of fact, I had the same question about CT, as in CT can, from another topic.


----------



## Span (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

300.34

Conductor bending radius apply to this installation too.


----------



## BigDave (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

EGC = Equipment Grounding Conductor


----------



## EPrice (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				BigDave said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the EGC in the open panel be bonded to the grounded conductor lug, since it is the first system disconnecting means as per NEC 250.30 (A)(1)?


250.30 is for separately derived systems.  I believe the correct reference for this service would be 250.24(B), which is very similar to the section you referenced.  Both of those sections require the grounded conductor (neutral) to be connected to the service disconnect enclosure and the equipment grounding conductors.  This is to be accomplished by the main bonding jumper.  In the photo, I believe I can see the head of the main bonding jumper (a green screw) in the right side of the neutral bar just above the lug containing the grounding electrode conductor.  That screw connects the grounded conductors to the metal enclosure, an through the enclosure to the equipment grounding lug (if the paint has been removed under the lug as Chris Kennedy mentioned).


----------



## beach (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

How is the main breaker attached to the can? and how is that meter section being fed? That doesn't look like conduit....... (I know you're only talking about the opened main disconnect panel, I was just wondering..)

EDIT: Oh, it's heat bent PVC (wrinkled) going into the wrong size connector with a putty seal....... :shock: I think I'd be more concerned with the service entrance....what's up with that? Is this a trick question????


----------



## paul hardy (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

I would say 312.2 both enclosures appear to be recessed behind the siding. The grounding lug appears to be intalled in the correct location square D provides those lugs with the enclosure and the tapped hole is in that location. TA stands for threaded adapter for pvc pipe.


----------



## dcspector (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Sorry all.....TA (terminal adapter) or as Paul mentioned threaded adapter.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

The copper ground wire exiting the disconnect should be protected in conduit.

There should be a factory cover guard plate over the wiring and breaker with a screw to secure the cover guard also!


----------



## beach (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

PC, They took the deadfront off to take the picture......


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

beach,

My medication wore off!

You can't fix stupid :lol:


----------



## chris kennedy (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				BigDave said:
			
		

> As a matter of fact, I had the same question about CT, as in CT can, in one of the other topics.


Welcome to the BB. CT means current transformer. Here is a picture of CT's installed in a CT can.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> The copper ground wire exiting the disconnect should be protected in conduit.


A #8 or smaller copper grounding electrode conductor must be installed in a raceway or cable armor.

A #6 copper grounding electrode conductor free from physical damage can be run along the surface of the building without metal covering or protection where it is securely fastened to the building structure.

A #4 or larger copper grounding electrode conductor only needs to be protected where subject to physical damage.

See 250.64(B)

Chris


----------



## beach (Jan 13, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Sooooooooo..........Jeff, what's the violation? I still want to know what's up with the service riser, was it approved? I can't tell if it's PVC or SE cable.....and the putty......?


----------



## jar546 (Jan 14, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

It was approved by someone else.  As I stated in my 3rd post, I was there for another reason and popped the cover for a training photo opportunity.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 14, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

raider1,

Our electric utility requires the grounding electode conductor protected with conduit and properly straped to the wall, info from  their spec. sheet. They spec. the rod size, conduit type, strap type and screws to be used in the strap.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 14, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> raider1,Our electric utility requires the grounding electode conductor protected with conduit and properly straped to the wall, info from  their spec. sheet. They spec. the rod size, conduit type, strap type and screws to be used in the strap.


Ok,

What I posted is what is in the NEC.

Chris


----------



## BigDave (Jan 14, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Thanks for the photo of the CT can Chris Kennedy. I find this forum to be very educational!! I'm a new electrical inspector and spend an hour or two every morning picking up helpful information from the topic discussions.


----------



## TimNY (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Now, I've seen this a million times and taken it an an approved method.

However, given the number of days gone by and I can't think of any other possibility.. I'll take a swipe at it.

ECG not secured to metal box?


----------



## EPrice (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				TimNY said:
			
		

> ECG not secured to metal box?


Are you talking about requiring a clamp where the grounding electrode conductor enters the box?  I'm not aware of a code section that would require that.  The various wiring method sections require clamps or connectors, but a single conductor used as a grounding electrode conductor doesn't fall under any of those sections.


----------



## globe trekker (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

.

This forum and everyone's pics. [ and violations ] is addictive stuff!    I actually cannot wait to go to

this site and read all of the postings, ...multiple times during the day!    

I know, ...I've got it bad!   Heck, I'm ' Jones-ing '  right now for another 'code forum fix'.  D`OH !! 

*P.S.   Please keep the pics. and code sections coming.    This is excellent training material!*

.


----------



## TimNY (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				EPrice said:
			
		

> TimNY said:
> 
> 
> 
> > ECG not secured to metal box?


Are you talking about requiring a clamp where the grounding electrode conductor enters the box?  I'm not aware of a code section that would require that.  The various wiring method sections require clamps or connectors, but a single conductor used as a grounding electrode conductor doesn't fall under any of those sections.

Yes, that's what I was referring too.  See the GEC run like that all the time, assumed it was an approved method.  But since we apparently haven't found the violation, figured i would throw it out there.

I guess the reason it doesn't apply is because a single conductor isn't a 'cable'?


----------



## pwood (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

meter seal?


----------



## TimNY (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				pwood said:
			
		

> meter seal?


according to jar, it's inside the disconnect enclosure.  I must admit I'm perplexed.  I don't inspect electric (apparently that's a good thing, since I can't find the violation!), but everything looks good to me.

Breaker in upside down?  I have no idea  :?:


----------



## TimNY (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

second attempt..

NEC 2005 200.6(B)

A grounded conductor 6AWG or larger shall be identified by 1) a continuous white or gray finish, 2) by three continuous white stripes, 3) by a distinctive white or gray marking encircling the conductor at the point of installation..

I see one continuous white stripe.. maybe 2.. maybe not 3?

(yes, this has been bothering me all day     )


----------



## pwood (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

tim,

 i'm referring to the lock ring that seals the meter to the meter base and has a seal to prevent theft. it might be there but i don't see it.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



> But since we apparently haven't found the violation,


Check out 300.4(G) and 352.46. The PVC pipe connecting the meter and the breaker enclosure does not have a bushing installed on the threaded male adapter.  

Chris


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)

Is the service entrance wire sheathing under the lugs? Did they use Noaux on the lug connections? I give up!


----------



## dcspector (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				raider1 said:
			
		

> > But since we apparently haven't found the violation,


Check out 300.4(G) and 352.46. The PVC pipe connecting the meter and the breaker enclosure does not have a bushing installed on the threaded male adapter.  

Chris

Yes the violation was cited on the 5th and 6th post down on the first page of this thread. Also, TA is (Terminal Adapter)


----------



## raider1 (Jan 15, 2010)

Re: Service violation(s)



			
				Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> Is the service entrance wire sheathing under the lugs? Did they use Noaux on the lug connections? I give up!


There is no specific NEC requirement to use an anti-oxidant compound on the aluminum connections.

110.3(B), if the installation instructions require it you must use it but I have not seen any that do.

Chris


----------



## jar546 (Apr 13, 2010)

Testing 123.  There was an issue with old attachments on the board and I wanted to see if old posted pics would still show up.  Thanks, it worked.


----------



## vegas paul (Apr 14, 2010)

Well, it worked... now give us the answer you were looking for, Jeff!


----------



## Forest (Apr 14, 2010)

I have not read the entire thread but is he looking for 314.28?


----------

