Compliant? You make the call

[ActionDave]

From 250.24
(1) General. The grounding electrode conductor connection shall be made at any accessible point from the load end of the service drop or service lateral to and including the terminal or bus to which the grounded service conductor is connected at the service disconnecting means.

If you put together 250.24(A) with 250.24(A)(4) you will see where they don't want a screw as a pathway for the GEC, it is only where the pathway is a wire(sized in 250.66) or a buss bar is it allowed to land somewhere else, unless it is ahead of the main disconnect.

Now my question is?

Is this a service disconnect?

We use the R-3 version of these QO disconnects for trailer disconnects, and as you can see in the photo, there is only one lug for a GEC on the neutral bar, they do make a small grounding bar for it, but it wont take a #4 conductor (which is not needed for a 100 amp service) the only way to do these if you have more then one GEC landing, is to tap the other GEC to the main GEC, the #4 can go into the lug on the neutral bar and using a split bolt tap the #6 to the #4 just outside the disconnect, these disconnects do not have much room in them to tap inside them, and are hard enough to even get the service conductors in them, I have never used one for a service, just a feeder disconnect.

I agree with you and Augdog, the GEC goes to the busbar not the cabinet, but I have land #4 without an add-a-lug in a SquareD buss many a time.

 

[e57]

From 250.24
(1) General. The grounding electrode conductor connection shall be made at any accessible point from the load end of the service drop or service lateral to and including the terminal or bus to which the grounded service conductor is connected at the service disconnecting means.

A little further down is this wording....

(4) Main Bonding Jumper as Wire or Busbar. Where the main bonding jumper specified in 250.28 is a wire or busbar and is installed from the grounded conductor terminal bar or bus to the equipment grounding terminal bar or bus in the service equipment, the grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted to be connected to the equipment grounding terminal, bar, or bus to which the main bonding jumper is connected.​

While it is STILL a violation as pictured - but the questions above about how to do it when the hole in the lug is too small for the GEC, or there are more GEC's than terminals. Taking a single MBJ to the EGC bar, and GEC's to that is allowed. So in this case the GEC's to a ground bar added to the can and a #6 (depending the SEC size...) to the grounded conductor bar.... Or as Hurk27 suggested - tap the GEC outside the can. Or what I do often bond gas to rods, ground rods to water, water to ufer if there is one - and the Ufer (if there is one) in the panel. Sometimes all in one shot on an unspliced conductor.

 

[hurk27]

I agree with you and Augdog, the GEC goes to the busbar not the cabinet, but I have land #4 without an add-a-lug in a SquareD buss many a time.

Landing a #4 to the grounding buss is not the problem, as the NEC allows EGC's to be bonded to the cabinet by a screw, and allows the cabinet to act as the bond between the grounded service conductor and the grounding buss for EGC's, if we read 250.28 then 250.28(A) we will see the MBJ can be a screw, but in 250.28 it does not mention anything about a GEC, this is because its not for the GEC.

It all changes with GEC's, because of the high current nature of lightning, I guess they feel a screw is not good enough, and want a wire or buss to be the pathway, so landing a GEC to the cabinet or a separate grounding buss using a screw is a violation of both 250.24(A)(1) and 250.24(A)(4), the problem is most do not put both of these two sections together to understand this requirement.

This has been discussed as far back as I can remember on this site, but the forum change over in February 2003 will limit a search to that date, but for good reading just do a search on 250.24(A)(4) and it will give you hours of reading.

You will also see there was allot of confusion to what this code meant even back then.

If I remember right this was added to the NEC back in 1984?

 

[ActionDave]

Gotcha!! Now I see what you meant.

I see now that e57 got it without extra explanation.

 

[hurk27]

After looking at the OP photo's again I see another problem and probably why they did this, they landed the EGC from the SER cable in the lug for the GEC, they didn't add the optional grounding buss bar, which will need the add a lug lug kit for wires larger then #6 because of the #4 AL, in the SER, which will still require the #6 GEC to be tapped to the #4 GEC.

And that really does look like they used yellow #7 pulling compound on the AL connections:roll:

 

[hurk27]

Now want to throw a wrench in to this, what if the GEC is enclosed in a metal raceway, would the lock nut, bonding lock nut meet the intent of 250.92(A)(3) without a bonding bushing and wire to the neutral bar?

250.92(B) seems to say just a lock nut or a bonding lock nut is ok, but I don't think so as it doesnt meet the intent of 250.24(A)(1) Or 250.24(A)(4)

 

[jxofaltrds]

A little further down is this wording....
While it is STILL a violation as pictured - but the questions above about how to do it when the hole in the lug is too small for the GEC, or there are more GEC's than terminals. Taking a single MBJ to the EGC bar, and GEC's to that is allowed. So in this case the GEC's to a ground bar added to the can and a #6 (depending the SEC size...) to the grounded conductor bar.... Or as Hurk27 suggested - tap the GEC outside the can. Or what I do often bond gas to rods, ground rods to water, water to ufer if there is one - and the Ufer (if there is one) in the panel. Sometimes all in one shot on an unspliced conductor.

How about 250.64(F)(3)?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Building code may require wood on concrete to be PT, no?

No, this is not a structural piece of wood.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

No, this is not a structural piece of wood.

Why is it not structural ? It does hold part of the building

 

[lakee911]

No, this is not a structural piece of wood.

It doesn't support the building, but it does support the panel.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

It doesn't support the building, but it does support the panel.

And the panel is part of the building

 

[ivsenroute]

This has been some great discussion. Thanks for participating. As the inspector I wrote up 3 items for this installation:

250.8(A)(5)&(6) Tek Screws

250.64(D)(2) Because the GEC connection must be IN the service disconnect, not outside

250.12 For the way the lugs were added.

I do not know if those lugs are listed for bonding AND grounding as required.

You may or may not agree with my call but there was nothing else that I was aware of that would need to be done.

 

[electricmanscott]

It doesn't support the building, but it does support the panel.

And the panel is part of the building

Good lord. :roll:

Did anyone mention this is an NEC forum? :grin:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

It doesn't support the building, but it does support the panel.

Yes it supports the panel. Sow what? Do you think this piece of wood is going to rot away on the wall? Not likely unless the wall has moisture problems. The code does not req. PT wood-- that is plain and simple. I have mounted many a board on masonry with no problems. The problem is when the masonry wicks up moisture from grade level. This is why the building code allows non pt in contact with masonry at certain level above grade.

 

[e57]

Now want to throw a wrench in to this, what if the GEC is enclosed in a metal raceway, would the lock nut, bonding lock nut meet the intent of 250.92(A)(3) without a bonding bushing and wire to the neutral bar?

250.92(B) seems to say just a lock nut or a bonding lock nut is ok, but I don't think so as it doesnt meet the intent of 250.24(A)(1) Or 250.24(A)(4)

The neutral bar in a main 'could' also be the EGC - depending on arrangment - but one code covers the connection to the neutral, the other the bonding. In this particular case IMO the additional connection of the raceway - that the GEC may or may not be bonded to is negligable. Grounded to Grounding connections are there at that enclosure. it isn't like fault current has several other enclosures to flow through to get there... (through the bonding of the enclosure/raceway) But I see your point...

How about 250.64(F)(3)?

What about it specifically (Still 05 here... 08 is PITA to browse free now) My take on the code you state is 'it shall be permitted' (blah blah bus bar, blah blah blah) you could - use a bus bar... See 250.64F(1) also permits to connect each electrode together, or individualy - so long as the conductor size from (sucessively) common ones are the largest size required for that electrode. e.g. rods to water #6, then water (sized 250.66) to MBJ.