[RE-wrenches] Conduit Bushings

[Glenn Burt]

Just got to my code book.

So 300.4(G) says it is the size of the conductor (4AWG), not the quantity that triggers the requirement for some type of insulated fitting for conductor protection, so I see no violation there.

 

-Glenn

 

From: RE-wrenches [mailto:re-wrenches-bounces at lists.re-wrenches.org] On Behalf Of peter.parrish at calsolareng.com
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 2:14 PM
To: 'RE-wrenches' <re-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org>
Subject: [RE-wrenches] Conduit Bushings

 

Recently we were asked to do a combined inspection and engineering review of a 362.70 kWdc PV system using 5 Sungrow SG60KM-U inverters. We found issues like palm trees and air handling equipment shading significant parts of the arrays, electrician’s tape and palm fronds on the surface of the modules. But we also observed two significant Code violations: PV  source conductors lying on the surface of the torch-down roof and lack of bushings at the connectors on the ends of 2” LFMC. The PV source conductors got secured and we saw bushings threaded onto the ends LFMC connectors.

 

Upon close inspection we discovered that the bushings had been broken at one point on their circumference, no doubt to simplify their attachment. Their were 11 PV source circuits (22 current-carrying 10 AWG PV Wire conductors.)

 

Is this a NEC Code violation? If so, what section would we cite? It seems obvious that the bushing had been “modified”, but I would like to be more specific. Or does it come under the workmanship category?

 

Regards,

 

*	Peter Parrish

 

Peter T. Parrish, Ph.D., President

SolarGnosis

1107 Fair Oaks Ave.

Suite 351

South Pasadena, CA 91030

(323) 839-6108

Peter.parrish at solargnosis.com <mailto:Peter.parrish at solargnosis.com> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20170304/5b742773/attachment-0002.html>