250.118 - using emt conduit as a ground

[cowboyjwc]

I think that the reason you see an EGC in EMT is that there are probably inspectors that require it.

We were told at a seminar that article 250 is probably the most misunderstood and misinterpreted article in the NEC

I can't tell you how many EC's put in two ground rods for a panel and the run another ground all the way to the front of the house, because they were told that's what's required. Yeah if you're using it for grounding, but if you're only bonding the cold water or the house has PEX, then you don't need it. I guess the city of Los Angeles, which is right next to us, requires it for some reason.

I've had very highly respected people in the trade tell me that grounding is highly over rated.

 

[Strathead]

Because K-wired, he said if he ever became an inspector he would make it more economical for us all to install a wire type EGC.

Which I guess means he would pay us for the labor and material required to install one, not sure.

If I was going to pay for the wire and labor to install a wire type EGC,that I couldn't enforce to be installed, you better bet I'd be up there crawling around making sure it was installed properly also.

JAP>

No, the code requires all joints to be made up tight. If they are not made up tight and there is also you ground wire in the conduit then there is a much higher potential for not having a ground fault path of sufficient ampacity. I assume you agree with that statement. If you knew that your inspector was going to spot check several connectors and couplings, every time you installed a conduit run without a ground, thereby making you inspections longer, and IF he found one that wasn't tight especially on more than one occasion he would be within his right to require an independent verification that all couplings and connectors were made up tight at your cost. Most of us would just install grounds in the conduits. As I implied more than once, I have done many things because I knew that the inspector preferred it a certain way and it just made my life easier all the way around. Even the best of inspectors is going to make life more difficult at every turn when they don't like an installation, but can't do anything about it. In my area I guarantee that the local inspectors will look more closely at everything we do, if we were not pulling a green wire in our conduits. Perhaps others here are perfect, but I will admit that if an inspector looks closely enough he can probably find a reason to fail my guys on every significant inspection. Kind of like offensive holding in a football game.

 

[david]

I think that the reason you see an EGC in EMT is that there are probably inspectors that require it.

We were told at a seminar that article 250 is probably the most misunderstood and misinterpreted article in the NEC

I can't tell you how many EC's put in two ground rods for a panel and the run another ground all the way to the front of the house, because they were told that's what's required. Yeah if you're using it for grounding, but if you're only bonding the cold water or the house has PEX, then you don't need it. I guess the city of Los Angeles, which is right next to us, requires it for some reason.

I've had very highly respected people in the trade tell me that grounding is highly over rated.

its been my experience the electrical engineer specifies a wire type equipment ground in there specifications

here most of our water supply lines are metal from the curb to the meters in our buildings basements. So it is necessary to make the bond to the first five ft. even when it means running the length to the opposite side of a basement

 

[david]

No, the code requires all joints to be made up tight. If they are not made up tight and there is also you ground wire in the conduit then there is a much higher potential for not having a ground fault path of sufficient ampacity. I assume you agree with that statement. If you knew that your inspector was going to spot check several connectors and couplings, every time you installed a conduit run without a ground, thereby making you inspections longer, and IF he found one that wasn't tight especially on more than one occasion he would be within his right to require an independent verification that all couplings and connectors were made up tight at your cost. Most of us would just install grounds in the conduits. As I implied more than once, I have done many things because I knew that the inspector preferred it a certain way and it just made my life easier all the way around. Even the best of inspectors is going to make life more difficult at every turn when they don't like an installation, but can't do anything about it. In my area I guarantee that the local inspectors will look more closely at everything we do, if we were not pulling a green wire in our conduits. Perhaps others here are perfect, but I will admit that if an inspector looks closely enough he can probably find a reason to fail my guys on every significant inspection. Kind of like offensive holding in a football game.

The majority of our conduit runs, up high, are fastened to metal bar joist in this area, so in that sense you are building an equipment grounding system that includes paths created by fasting to the metal bar joist

Since I have experience on the electrical installation side , i can sometimes spot a set screw that is longer than others. But i can not determine if a coupling is lose unless it is lose at both sides of a coupling even if i where to twist the coupling

 

[jap]

No, the code requires all joints to be made up tight. If they are not made up tight and there is also you ground wire in the conduit then there is a much higher potential for not having a ground fault path of sufficient ampacity. I assume you agree with that statement. If you knew that your inspector was going to spot check several connectors and couplings, every time you installed a conduit run without a ground, thereby making you inspections longer, and IF he found one that wasn't tight especially on more than one occasion he would be within his right to require an independent verification that all couplings and connectors were made up tight at your cost. Most of us would just install grounds in the conduits. As I implied more than once, I have done many things because I knew that the inspector preferred it a certain way and it just made my life easier all the way around. Even the best of inspectors is going to make life more difficult at every turn when they don't like an installation, but can't do anything about it. In my area I guarantee that the local inspectors will look more closely at everything we do, if we were not pulling a green wire in our conduits. Perhaps others here are perfect, but I will admit that if an inspector looks closely enough he can probably find a reason to fail my guys on every significant inspection. Kind of like offensive holding in a football game.

As I said earlier. A wire type EGC is no better than a conduit type EGC if it's not terminated properly.

There's just as much chance that the EC may have happened to miss bonding a wire type EGC to a box as there is in his missing tightening a connector on a piece of EMT.

If you install a wire type EGC inside of a raceway that is already accepted as and EGC, and the inspector takes issue with any of it,then, in my mind, your more than likely going to have twice as many connections to check.

In most cases, those who fear what an inspector might say lack confidence in what they know is right in their own minds.

As you told me earlier,,, if you want to install that wire type EGC even if it's not required,,, "Go Ahead", just don't be teaching those young minds that it's required.

JAP>



JAP>

 

[electrofelon]

No, the code requires all joints to be made up tight. If they are not made up tight and there is also you ground wire in the conduit then there is a much higher potential for not having a ground fault path of sufficient ampacity. I assume you agree with that statement. If you knew that your inspector was going to spot check several connectors and couplings, every time you installed a conduit run without a ground, thereby making you inspections longer, and IF he found one that wasn't tight especially on more than one occasion he would be within his right to require an independent verification that all couplings and connectors were made up tight at your cost. Most of us would just install grounds in the conduits. As I implied more than once, I have done many things because I knew that the inspector preferred it a certain way and it just made my life easier all the way around. Even the best of inspectors is going to make life more difficult at every turn when they don't like an installation, but can't do anything about it. In my area I guarantee that the local inspectors will look more closely at everything we do, if we were not pulling a green wire in our conduits. Perhaps others here are perfect, but I will admit that if an inspector looks closely enough he can probably find a reason to fail my guys on every significant inspection. Kind of like offensive holding in a football game.

IMO it is not any less important to have tight fittings in a conduit run where a wire EGC is used. Even with a wire EGC, the conduit will still be the only fault path for a majority of the circuit length.

I've had very highly respected people in the trade tell me that grounding is highly over rated.

Not sure if you mean earthing or bonding, but even bonding has become this panacea of importance and safety and IMO there are other things that are just as if not more important. Never hear anyone use a redundant GFCI or OCPD.....

 

[jap]

I think that the reason you see an EGC in EMT is that there are probably inspectors that require it.

Inspectors? or Engineers?

How can an inspector require a wire type EGC if one is not spec'd on a project?

JAP>

 

[MAC702]

By threat of making the inspection "more difficult" if not there.

 

[jap]

By threat of making the inspection "more difficult" if not there.

If you have an inspector threating to make an inspection "more difficult" for things that are perfectly acceptable by the NEC, you have bigger fish to fry.

JAP>

 

[ActionDave]

....I've had very highly respected people in the trade tell me that grounding is highly over rated.

....Not sure if you mean earthing or bonding, but even bonding has become this panacea of importance and safety and IMO there are other things that are just as if not more important. Never hear anyone use a redundant GFCI or OCPD.....

Could be both, the Dirt Worshipers and The Cult of the Green Wire seem to be gaining more converts every year.

 

[Strathead]

If you have an inspector threating to make an inspection "more difficult" for things that are perfectly acceptable by the NEC, you have bigger fish to fry.

JAP>

I am sure he is talking about implied threat. You really live in a Utopia where your inspectors have no personal opinions, treat every contractor exactly the same, enforce every code exactly as written and don no favors or make things difficult for anyone?

 

[jap]

I am sure he is talking about implied threat. You really live in a Utopia where your inspectors have no personal opinions, treat every contractor exactly the same, enforce every code exactly as written and don no favors or make things difficult for anyone?

There you go assuming again.

What about his statement below seemed implied?

By threat of making the inspection "more difficult" if not there

Sure the inspectors in my area have their own opinions just like I do. We just hash it out.

I've earned their respect over the years, and, I respect them also.

However, I don't have to do unnecessary things, such as installing additional wire type EGC when I already have an EGC like your having to do for fear of them finding something wrong in your work.

JAP>

 

[jap]

If they find something I did wrong, I simply make it as it should be.

Isn't that what the 2nd look is all about anyway?

JAP>

 

[MAC702]

It case it was forgotten/missed, I was quoting a member in this thread on what he would do as an inspector.

Thought it should be noted in context, and he is NOT an inspector.

 

[Strathead]

There you go assuming again.

What about his statement below seemed implied?



JAP>

Just because an inspector overtly threatening to fail someone for following code is not in my wheelhouse of experience and would likely result in disciplinary action against the inspector. That's all.

 

[jap]

Just because an inspector overtly threatening to fail someone for following code is not in my wheelhouse of experience and would likely result in disciplinary action against the inspector. That's all.

You said this:

I was trying to convey that I would make it more difficult for you, if you chose not to install a green ground wire in your conduits

You do know do know the mystery inspector he was referring to was you, right?

This would get you some disciplinary action on your first day of the job if you came on my jobsite trying to enforce a non-existent rule.

JAP>

 

[MAC702]

It case it was forgotten/missed, I was quoting a member in this thread on what he would do as an inspector.

Thought it should be noted in context, and he is NOT an inspector.

I hate not being able to edit my posts.

I typo'd and it should say: "Though it should be noted in context."

It changed the meaning. Apologies.

 

[jap]

To my knowledge there is nothing in the code that states EMT has to be supplemented by a wire type EGC.


JAP>

 

[jap]

I hate not being able to edit my posts.

I typo'd and it should say: "Though it should be noted in context."

It changed the meaning. Apologies.

That's ok, the other day I wrote Eaton and it posted as Easton, when a baseball bat had nothing to do with the subject.


JAP>

 

[Strathead]

You said this:

I was trying to convey that I would make it more difficult for you, if you chose not to install a green ground wire in your conduits

You do know do know the mystery inspector he was referring to was you, right?

This would get you some disciplinary action on your first day of the job if you came on my jobsite trying to enforce a non-existent rule.

JAP>

Just for the record I am done.