Hmm...is this right?

Originally Posted By: hgordon
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Look at the connection from the Neutral Bus Bar.





Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



That looks like it is simply bonding the nipple to the meter can (is that what is to the right?)


If so it is required on a nipple with service connectors. The green screw is present so this is made up as a service disconnect panel.


Originally Posted By: hgordon
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



The box/can to the right is the meter.


Originally Posted By: jtedesco
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Harvey:


That bonding jumper is installed on a bonding type bushing because there are rings left in the concentric knockout, and if they were not present and that fitting took up the entire knockout, there would still have to be a bonding type locknut with a screw or wedge, but most likely a bonding type locknut, one with a "pointy screw" that would make a permanent and tight connection to the full metal enclosure.

Did you verify that the bonding jumper was sized properly?

Should be the same size as the grounding electrode conductor that goes to the water pipe and ground rod.

![](upload://z4i7gNfwKIAxC8y1KwfYPzg22d2.jpeg)


I hope that this will help to answer the question.

I would recommend reading the IAEI Soares Book on Grounding, and if anyone has that book there are lots of images that will make it easier to understand. Let me know which ones are of interest.


--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

Originally Posted By: hgordon
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Thanks Joe…but I did not know that they were supposed to match…hmmm, glad I called for further eval by electrician…had other issues.


Harvey


Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I see another thing that would concern me as an electrical inspector but is probably beyond the scope of an HI.


If he is using a metal raceway/nipple to the meter can I bet you $1 there is a parallel neutral situation. The power company grounded that neutral in the meter base, tied that to the can, which is in turn tied to the disconnect enclosure. That is path 1. Path 2 is the grounded conductor itself.


(personally I don’t see this as a baby killer but it does violate 250.6)


Standard practice is to use a PVC nipple to avoid this situation. The only other choice is to get the utility to unground the neutral in their meter base and that may not even be possible with equipment they buy. It really doesn't matter where the Ground electrode connects in this situation and a lot of utilities like it in their meter base

This is one reason a lot of places like the combined meter/disconnect box. Then your house is wired as a sub inside.


Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Greg I agree it is a parallel neutral but IMO it is not prohibited.


I also choose to use a PVC nipple in this situation but a metal nipple is not a violation.

It is no different from running rigid metal conduit from an out door meter to an indoor panel.

Bob


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



It would get you a yellow tag in any jurisdiction within 100 miles of here.


Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Greg Fretwell wrote:
It would get you a yellow tag in any jurisdiction within 100 miles of here.


You must live in a forward thinking area. ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)

You said 250.6, Objectionable Current is the keyword of this section. Can you point me to the definition of Objectionable Current?

Personally I would say that any current flowing threw this nipple is objectionable but now we arrive at a problem, if you say that this is a violation of 250.6, so are many other things.

The GEC to a common underground water system.

GEC Taps as required / allowed by 250.64(D) & 250.30(A)(3)

A Common Grounding Electrode when required by 250.58



Here is a 400 amp service I installed with a PVC nipple at the meter, the inspector did not want to pass it unless I ran a separate bonding wire from meter to panel. I finally got him to change his mind when I asked if he would want the separate bond wire with an SE cable service.


[ Image: http://www.nachi.org/bbsystem/usrimages/more/pvcservicenipple.jpg ]

Greg I would rather the inspectors here enforced as your area does, I just do not understand how they can pick and choose what is objectionable and what is not.

Bob


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



They just say “parallel neutral” on the card, I came up with 250.6


The only reason I know about it is I asked the question at the local IAEI meeting and got pummeled by guys from every local jurisdiction.


Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



[quote=“Bob Badger”]
Greg Fretwell wrote:
It would get you a yellow tag in any jurisdiction within 100 miles of here.


You must live in a forward thinking area. ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)

You said 250.6, Objectionable Current is the keyword of this section. Can you point me to the definition of Objectionable Current?

Point me to the definition of "neutral", what's your point?
I think it is generally assumed it is "objectionable" to have circuit current flowing in a raceway system.

The other examples you cited would involve current in the earth or piping on the line side of the service disconnect. (water pipes between homes etc) That is not NEC land it is NESC land. Earth return is really not that rare on the utility side.