The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Sprinklered equipment 26-008
by bigpapa
12/02/16 04:24 PM
On Delay Relay with Auto Reset
by Potseal
12/01/16 09:59 AM
Wow, that was close!
by jraef
11/28/16 07:06 PM
Earthquake in New Zeeland
by RODALCO
11/27/16 11:25 PM
Calling all Non-US members!! (Non-US only)
by Tjia1981
11/27/16 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 13
HotLine1 9
Trumpy 8
Texas_Ranger 8
sparkyinak 7
Who's Online
0 registered (), 255 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#100296 - 11/09/06 03:01 PM 250.96 (A)
ShockMe77 Offline
Member

Registered: 06/11/05
Posts: 823
Loc: Rahway, New Jersey
Would any of you consider using a chase nipple as a primary means to bonding a threaded 1-1/4" LB if the chase nipple was attached to an enclosure through an eccentric knockout?

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#100297 - 11/10/06 03:45 PM Re: 250.96 (A)
ShockMe77 Offline
Member

Registered: 06/11/05
Posts: 823
Loc: Rahway, New Jersey
So the chase nipple is going though an eccentric knockout in a panel and attached to a threaded LB. In your opinion, does this wiring method meet NEC requirements?

Thanks!

--Ron

Top
#100298 - 11/10/06 03:58 PM Re: 250.96 (A)
George Little Offline
Member

Registered: 01/18/04
Posts: 1492
Loc: Michigan USA
Ron if this is a circuit over 250v. to ground then it might be a violation. 250.97 If this is a Service raceway and this is the method of bonding then it might be a violation. 250.92 Your not giving us much information. I don't think it's a good installations but I've seen it done and can't really argue that it's not "effectively bonded" based on my understanding of the term. In technical terms it's "pig work". You only have to bond one end of a raceway sometimes, even on Service raceways. Now what brings up this question?
_________________________
George Little

Top
#100299 - 11/10/06 04:27 PM Re: 250.96 (A)
ShockMe77 Offline
Member

Registered: 06/11/05
Posts: 823
Loc: Rahway, New Jersey
Thanks George. I bring this up because I was on a job where this was done and I was concerned that the pipe was not properly bonded. IMO it's not. The guy who did it is one of these guys that can do no wrong no matter what you tell him and I've just given up trying. In my opinion it's a poor bond. I'm very concerned about the installation because the pipe feeds numerous pieces of commerical kitchen equipment (28 current-carrying conductors in all) and I'd hate to to later find out that someone died there because a ground fault did not clear when it should have. And because this job had no permits, there is no paper trail, and therefore no responsibility if a fatality occurs.

Top
#100300 - 11/10/06 05:01 PM Re: 250.96 (A)
iwire Offline
Moderator

Registered: 01/05/03
Posts: 4343
Loc: North Attleboro, MA USA
Shock it may be a violation if over 250 volt but I have very little doubt it is bonded well enough if you have 28 current carrying conductors.

When you have multiple conductors you base the grounding on the single largest OCPD protecting the circuits. Not the collective total.

So what would that be.....a 20 amp breaker vs a 1 1/4" LB and chase?

One last thing is that if the fittings don't bit into the paint the paint should be removed.
_________________________
Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts

Top
#100301 - 11/11/06 10:04 AM Re: 250.96 (A)
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6804
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
OK, now let's dig a little deeper.....
1-1/4" raceway.....comm kitchen equip....28 current carrying conductors.....

45% derated, for 28ccc; ambient in comm kitchen?? site discussion for sure, or plan review reject/clarification........OH, I FORGOT, no permit, no inspection....

No paper trail??? DO NOT BET your life, or $1; you may be surprized how quick the client 'fesses' up who did the work. It's not really that hard for an AHJ, cop, insurance adjuster, etc., to get info.

That said, the chase nip debate cannot get a firm answer from me. More info needed.

John
_________________________
John

Top
#100302 - 11/12/06 06:55 AM Re: 250.96 (A)
luckyshadow Offline
Member

Registered: 01/04/05
Posts: 305
Loc: Maryland USA
NEVER assume there's no paper trail.
Just wait till something goes wrong and see how fast the owner comes up with the cancelled check that the contractor deposited into his business account. Not to mention anything the contractor wrote down on company letterhead. Put somebody in a hot enough seat and they come up with all kinds of interesting paperwork in order to save their own butt.
You failed to mention whether a full size grounding conductor was installed in the conduit in question.

Top
#100303 - 11/12/06 08:04 AM Re: 250.96 (A)
earlydean Offline
Member

Registered: 12/22/03
Posts: 749
Loc: Griswold, CT, USA
Chase nipples cannot provide proper bonding, as there is no way to "bite" into the enclosure (same reason why reducing washers cannot provide a bond). The threaded connection into the LB would be sufficient (if wrenchtight) for bonding the locknut to the LB, but not to bond the nipple or the LB to the enclosure. Locknuts do "bite". Sounds like either a green wire EGC bond would be required in this installation or replace the chase nipple with a close nipple and use two locknuts (and maybe a bushing).

BTW removing paint may lead to rust problems in the future. Always repaint over the bonded connection after it's all terminated and tightened.
_________________________
Earl

Top
#100304 - 11/12/06 08:26 AM Re: 250.96 (A)
George Little Offline
Member

Registered: 01/18/04
Posts: 1492
Loc: Michigan USA
Earlydean- While I support you professionalism and if I were installing the job I would not use chase nipples as this thread discribed them being used nor would I use reducing washers except where I had to for some unknown reason. While there are code reasons to not use these items for Service raceway bonding or over 250v. to ground, etc. the use of reducing washers and chase nipples is a code compliant installation and as an inspector we usually accept them when installed correctly.
_________________________
George Little

Top
#100305 - 11/12/06 08:58 AM Re: 250.96 (A)
Roger Offline
Member

Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 1779
Loc: N.C.
Unfortunatly, reducing washers are suitable for grounding per UL. (not that I agree they should be)

From the White Book:

 Quote:
[Outlet Boxes and Fittings Outlet Bushings and Fittings


Guide Information


GROUNDING
Metal reducing washers are considered suitable for grounding for use in circuits over and under 250 V and where installed in accordance with ANSI/NFPA 70, "National Electrical Code."


Roger

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals