Meter Pan

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



I don’t normally pull covers at the meter pan. This one just fell off when I opened the cover.


Call me stupid, but this looks like it has 240 volts to each pole. Can it be?

Let me see if I can explain the picture.

It's an under ground service to the meter with a 50 amp, two pole (240V) breaker. From there, it exits out the bottom at the black plug (which is actually a standard 240V plug) to a mobile home.

![](upload://iid1n2WvGCOicmvxb2st52EcsYL.jpeg)

Can someone 'splain ![icon_confused.gif](upload://qv5zppiN69qCk2Y6JzaFYhrff8S.gif)


--
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738

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



Parallel conductors.


But there are all those white conductors again. They should not all be white. The ones taped red and black should be permanently re-identified, not just taped.

But it has some other screwy things in there.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

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



jpeck wrote:
Parallel conductors.


I knew that ![icon_redface.gif](upload://f7DX2EWhmUfsDapWaYT3oJHMCj1.gif)


--
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738

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



jpeck wrote:
Parallel conductors.

But there are all those white conductors again. They should not all be white. The ones taped red and black should be permanently re-identified, not just taped..


Sorry but I have a few problems with this. ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

1) These do not look like 1/0 or larger conductors and therefore should not be in parallel (310.4)

Are these on the line or load side of the meter?

If on the line side the second set of conductors could be feeding another service on the same property if done per 230.3

If on the load side the second set of conductors may be feeding another service disconnect in the same building. (230.40 Exception 2)

2) Remarking white conductors in raceways is always a violation of 200.7(C)

3) Please tell me where the NEC states tape is not a permanent re-identification?

Take a look at 250.119 as an example.

Quote:
250.119 Identification of Equipment Grounding Conductors.

(A) Conductors Larger Than 6 AWG. An insulated or covered conductor larger than 6 AWG copper or aluminum shall be permitted, at the time of installation, to be permanently identified as an equipment grounding conductor at each end and at every point where the conductor is accessible. Identification shall encircle the conductor and shall be accomplished by one of the following:

(1)Stripping the insulation or covering from the entire exposed length

(2)Coloring the exposed insulation or covering green

(3)Marking the exposed insulation or covering with green tape or green adhesive labels


IMO this tell us that the NEC considers tape a permanent method of re-identification.

Bob


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

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



Please see the following highlighted paragraph.


Quote:
310.12 Conductor Identification.

(A) Grounded Conductors. Insulated or covered grounded conductors shall be identified in accordance with 200.6.

(B) Equipment Grounding Conductors. Equipment grounding conductors shall be in accordance with 250.119.

** (C) Ungrounded Conductors. Conductors that are intended for use as ungrounded conductors, whether used as a single conductor or in multiconductor cables, shall be finished to be clearly distinguishable from grounded and grounding conductors.

Distinguishing markings shall not conflict in any manner with the surface markings required by 310.11(B)(1).

Exception: Conductor identification shall be permitted in accordance with 200.7.



--
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

www.nachi.org/tedescobook.htm

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



Bob Badger wrote:
1) These do not look like 1/0 or larger conductors and therefore should not be in parallel (310.4)


That was not the question. Do you agree that they are in parallel (or could be, if your other scenarios do not apply)? Now, though, they did look like 1/0 or larger to me. Jeff?

Quote:
Are these on the line or load side of the meter?

If on the line side the second set of conductors could be feeding another service on the same property if done per 230.3

If on the load side the second set of conductors may be feeding another service disconnect in the same building. (230.40 Exception 2)


True.

Quote:
2) Remarking white conductors in raceways is always a violation of 200.7(C)


Oops. ![icon_redface.gif](upload://f7DX2EWhmUfsDapWaYT3oJHMCj1.gif) Yep, you are right, re-identification is not allowed, but not because they are conductors are in a raceway, but because they are not part of a "cable assembly". The restriction on re-identification is limited to conductors as part of a cable assembly.

3) Please tell me where the NEC states tape is not a permanent re-identification?

Take a look at 250.119 as an example.

Quote:
250.119 Identification of Equipment Grounding Conductors.

(A) Conductors Larger Than 6 AWG. An insulated or covered conductor larger than 6 AWG copper or aluminum shall be permitted, at the time of installation, to be permanently identified as an equipment grounding conductor at each end and at every point where the conductor is accessible. Identification shall encircle the conductor and shall be accomplished by one of the following:

(1)Stripping the insulation or covering from the entire exposed length

(2)Coloring the exposed insulation or covering green

(3)Marking the exposed insulation or covering with green tape or green adhesive labels


IMO this tell us that the NEC considers tape a permanent method of re-identification.

Bob[/quote]

Because here (which I acknowledge does not apply here because it relates to "cable assembly"),

200.7 Use of Insulation of a White or Gray Color or with Three Continuous White Stripes.
(C) Circuits of 50 Volts or More. The use of insulation that is white or gray or that has three continuous white stripes for other than a grounded conductor for circuits of 50 volts or more shall be permitted only as in (1) through (3).
(1) If part of a cable assembly and where the insulation is permanently reidentified to indicate its use as an ungrounded conductor, by painting or other effective means at its termination, and at each location where the conductor is visible and accessible.

Is tape considered "permanent" for re-identifying black to white? Yes. And if the tape come off, you will think the conductor IS NOT a grounded conductor, giving it a little more respect.

Is tape considered "permanent" for re-identifying white to black? No, not in my opinion, because "painting" is specifically stated, and it is the first option stated. If you tape white to black, and the tape comes off, you may think you have a grounded conductor there. You (not 'you' as in "you" individually, but as in 'you' the plural for everyone in general) tend to give ungrounded conductors a little more respect than grounded conductors. Maybe "you" do to?

Is that a conflict between code sections? I think so. But the more important issue is using white for black. Not when you use black for white.

And, to re-affirm, you are correct, white can only be re-identified if part of a cable assembly, not when used as single conductors.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

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



I was a bit tired last night icon_cool.gif


The black wires were #6 and the white were #1 (not 1/0) as far as I could tell (the only marking I saw said 1 AWG). As this was only a 50 amp service, I wasn't concerned. When I saw the parallel, split to each pole, I had a brain fart (I see now that its correct this way ).

So are they allowed to be used in parallel if they are #1 rather than 1/0?


--
Jeff Pope
JPI Home Inspection Service
"At JPI, we'll help you look better"
(661) 212-0738

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



jpope wrote:
So are they allowed to be used in parallel if they are #1 rather than 1/0?


No.

310.4 Conductors in Parallel.
Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper conductors of size 1/0 AWG and larger, comprising each phase, neutral, or grounded circuit conductor, shall be permitted to be connected in parallel (electrically joined at both ends to form a single conductor).

with some specific exceptions


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

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



jpeck wrote:
re-identification is not allowed, but not because they are conductors are in a raceway, but because they are not part of a "cable assembly". The restriction on re-identification is limited to conductors as part of a cable assembly.


Come on Jerry give me a break ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif) the choices are cord and cable assembles or raceways, what is the other option... K&T?

Spin it however you want if the conductors are in a raceway as they where in the picture you can not remark them.

I will not agree with you on the tape issue until the NEC says different.

If in one section they say tape is permanent, that is how it is throughout the code.

By the way, have you ever tried to paint THHN? I have, it does not stick. it is like trying to paint silicone caulking.

Bob


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

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



Bob Badger wrote:
Come on Jerry give me a break ![icon_smile.gif](upload://b6iczyK1ETUUqRUc4PAkX83GF2O.gif) the choices are cord and cable assembles or raceways, what is the other option... K&T?


Cable in a raceway.

Quote:
Spin it however you want if the conductors are in a raceway as they where in the picture you can not remark them.


You are correct, but you made a blanket statement, I was pointing out that it is not a correct blanket statement. NOT being cable is the correct blanket statement. The photo under discussion, there is no question, you statement holds true. Just not as a blanket statement.

Correct?

Quote:
I will not agree with you on the tape issue until the NEC says different.

If in one section they say tape is permanent, that is how it is throughout the code.

By the way, have you ever tried to paint THHN? I have, it does not stick. it is like trying to paint silicone caulking.

Bob


Not say it is possible to paint the insulation. Didn't I also ask if there was any approved paint for that purpose? I am saying that is the code stated option, is it not?

Don't blame the messenger, it is what the code says.


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

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



Quote:
Don't blame the messenger, it is what the code says.


Strange, the code also says tape is permanent, but you do not like that so you say the code is wrong. ![icon_rolleyes.gif](upload://iqxt7ABYC2TEBomNkCmZARIrQr6.gif)

Quote:
Is that a conflict between code sections? I think so.



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

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



Bob Badger wrote:
Quote:
Don't blame the messenger, it is what the code says.


Strange, the code also says tape is permanent, but you do not like that so you say the code is wrong. ![icon_rolleyes.gif](upload://iqxt7ABYC2TEBomNkCmZARIrQr6.gif)

Quote:
Is that a conflict between code sections? I think so.


Bob,

Read this. What does it say?

(C) Circuits of 50 Volts or More. The use of insulation that is white or gray or that has three continuous white stripes for other than a grounded conductor for circuits of 50 volts or more shall be permitted only as in (1) through (3).
(1) If part of a cable assembly and where the insulation is permanently reidentified to indicate its use as an ungrounded conductor, by painting or other effective means at its termination, and at each location where the conductor is visible and accessible.
(2) Where a cable assembly contains an insulated conductor for single-pole, 3-way or 4-way switch loops and the conductor with white or gray insulation or a marking of three continuous white stripes is used for the supply to the switch but not as a return conductor from the switch to the switched outlet. In these applications, the conductor with white or gray insulation or with three continuous white stripes shall be permanently reidentified to indicate its use by painting or other effective means at its terminations and at each location where the conductor is visible and accessible.
(3) Where a flexible cord, (I'll save this for the other post for you to see)


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida

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



jpeck wrote:

Read this. What does it say?


I have read it it says;

"by painting or other effective means

Then in another section of the code (250.119) that has to do directly with permanently re-identifying conductors it says;

Quote:
Identification shall encircle the conductor and shall be accomplished by one of the following

Marking the exposed insulation or covering with green tape or green adhesive labels


What you say here

Quote:
Is tape considered "permanent" for re-identifying black to white? Yes. And if the tape come off, you will think the conductor IS NOT a grounded conductor, giving it a little more respect.

Is tape considered "permanent" for re-identifying white to black? No, not in my opinion, because "painting" is specifically stated, and it is the first option stated. If you tape white to black, and the tape comes off, you may think you have a grounded conductor there. You (not 'you' as in "you" individually, but as in 'you' the plural for everyone in general) tend to give ungrounded conductors a little more respect than grounded conductors.


That is strictly out of your head it is not based on any CMP statements or anything in the NEC.

Yes it makes sense and yes I understand your concerns but it is not what the book says.

It would make sense that more outlets would be covered by GFCIs but they are not.

Let me ask you this, what do you think other effective means would be?

Bob


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

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



Or other effective means. What could that be?


Something permanent which cannot come loose and fall off like I see tape do on many occasions.

Something that coat the insulation, does not damage the insulation, and does not unwrap. I believe once you said 'markers' (may have been someone else who said that, but I thought it was you).


--
Jerry Peck
South Florida