GEC Protection

[Little Bill]

I'm having a disagreement with an inspector over an already installed GEC that is "sleeved" through a piece of EMT.

First, I'll get this out of the way. The installation is existing and I don't think I should have to redo it as I'm really not doing anything but adding a inner system bonding bridge. I had to ask the inspector a few questions on another part of the job and I just asked him about how I intended on adding the bridge. He asked how the GEC was run and I told him it was just sleeved in EMT down the side of the house.

I had planned on just running a piece of bare #6 tapped to the GEC from where it exited the EMT at the top, or maybe at the bottom where it came out. Then bring the jumper up/down to where the bridge would be placed.

Well he proceeded to tell me that the installation was wrong since the EMT wasn't bonded at both ends and that I couldn't add the bridge to it without correcting the install.
I tried to explain that the EMT was only a sleeve and didn't need to be bonded.
He is adamant that it does.

The way I read 250.64(E) you only need the conduit to be bonded if it runs from an enclosure or cabinet to the electrode. And you wouldn't need to bond it if it's just a sleeve.

It's not a major thing, but I don't like having to do something (re-do in this case) without it being required.

Am I reading the code section right, or is the inspector correct and I need to "eat crow"?

 

[Volta]

Well, I think it is certainly both the intent and physics that would require it to work as intended. As far as the way it is actually written, you may be right...

 

[suemarkp]

Seems pretty clear to me in the second half of 250.64(E): "Ferrous metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the raceway or enclosure to the GEC."

 

[Little Bill]

Seems pretty clear to me in the second half of 250.64(E): "Ferrous metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the raceway or enclosure to the GEC."

First, typically sleeves are not treated as raceways.

Second, the GEC doesn't go to a cabinet or equipment in this instance. It is tied onto the grounded conductor at the weather head, then straight down the wall to the electrode. The EMT is just there for protection.
If this were a new install the GEC would have to land in the meter can.

I've never had an inspector require bonding on a set up like this before. Even on a new install where the GEC is sleeved from the meter down to the electrode, the other inspectors don't require this.

 

[curt swartz]

Bill, it doesn't really matter what you want to call the section of EMT, the code is quite clear. It requires ferrous metal enclosures around the GEC to be bonded on both ends.

 

[petersonra]

Bill, it doesn't really matter what you want to call the section of EMT, the code is quite clear. It requires ferrous metal enclosures around the GEC to be bonded on both ends.

I don't see how one can get past this.

I agree it is not your problem as you did not install it in the first place.

OTOH, the $20 it would have cost you to fix it has morphed into $100 worth of your time trying to figure a way out of it.

 

[Strathead]

First, typically sleeves are not treated as raceways.

Second, the GEC doesn't go to a cabinet or equipment in this instance. It is tied onto the grounded conductor at the weather head, then straight down the wall to the electrode. The EMT is just there for protection.
If this were a new install the GEC would have to land in the meter can.

I've never had an inspector require bonding on a set up like this before. Even on a new install where the GEC is sleeved from the meter down to the electrode, the other inspectors don't require this.

Third, a raceway isn't an enclosure.

 

[texie]

I'm having a disagreement with an inspector over an already installed GEC that is "sleeved" through a piece of EMT.

First, I'll get this out of the way. The installation is existing and I don't think I should have to redo it as I'm really not doing anything but adding a inner system bonding bridge. I had to ask the inspector a few questions on another part of the job and I just asked him about how I intended on adding the bridge. He asked how the GEC was run and I told him it was just sleeved in EMT down the side of the house.

I had planned on just running a piece of bare #6 tapped to the GEC from where it exited the EMT at the top, or maybe at the bottom where it came out. Then bring the jumper up/down to where the bridge would be placed.

Well he proceeded to tell me that the installation was wrong since the EMT wasn't bonded at both ends and that I couldn't add the bridge to it without correcting the install.
I tried to explain that the EMT was only a sleeve and didn't need to be bonded.
He is adamant that it does.

The way I read 250.64(E) you only need the conduit to be bonded if it runs from an enclosure or cabinet to the electrode. And you wouldn't need to bond it if it's just a sleeve.

It's not a major thing, but I don't like having to do something (re-do in this case) without it being required.

Am I reading the code section right, or is the inspector correct and I need to "eat crow"?

Sorry Little Bill, you are going to have to eat crow on this one. Art. 250.64(E) is real clear on this and has been there forever. It was slightly changed in the 2011 to make it clear that not only is the bonding required, but it must be done in a manner that is the same as service raceways. There are fittings available for just this purpose.

 

[Little Bill]

I would agree if this was a case where the GEC went to equipment or cabinet. But it just goes from grounded conductor down to the rod (electrode).

 

[LEO2854]

I would agree if this was a case where the GEC went to equipment or cabinet. But it just goes from grounded conductor down to the rod (electrode).

Can't you just come out of the meter socket ?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I would agree if this was a case where the GEC went to equipment or cabinet. But it just goes from grounded conductor down to the rod (electrode).

If it is physically connected to the cabinet, you would only have to bond the one end. A ferrous sleeve used for a GEC must be bonded at both ends.

 

[Volta]

If it is physically connected to the cabinet, you would only have to bond the one end. A ferrous sleeve used for a GEC must be bonded at both ends.

I agree that it is the intent of that section, and we effectively have a choke otherwise, but does the text actually say that?

Now, a raceway can have open ends, with bushed holes for conductors, afaik, but up to this point, we a trusting that this is a sleeve.

What text exactly requires the bonding?

 

[Little Bill]

Can't you just come out of the meter socket ?

That's how we do new installs or service changes with this particular POCO. The other POCO will not allow us to land the GEC in the meter socket.
Thing is, this is an existing install. All I'm doing is changing the panel inside, nothing outside except adding the required bonding bridge.

If it is physically connected to the cabinet, you would only have to bond the one end. A ferrous sleeve used for a GEC must be bonded at both ends.

As I already stated, the GEC is attached to the grounded conductor at the weather head and run straight down to the rod or whatever electrode is in the ground. It is not connected to any cabinet. The EMT sleeve has been there since the original install.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
As I already stated, the GEC is attached to the grounded conductor at the weather head and run straight down to the rod or whatever electrode is in the ground. It is not connected to any cabinet. The EMT sleeve has been there since the original install.

The point where the GEC is connected to the grounded conductor has nothing to do with the issue of the bonding of the ferrous raceway or sleeve. While the text of 250.64(E) could use some work, it is my opinion that the following part of that section requires the bonding.

...Ferrous metal enclosures that are not physically continuous from cabinets or equipment to the grounding electrode shall be made electrically continuous by bonding each end of the raceway or enclosure to the grounding electrode conductor. ...

 

[infinity]

The point where the GEC is connected to the grounded conductor has nothing to do with the issue of the bonding of the ferrous raceway or sleeve. While the text of 250.64(E) could use some work, it is my opinion that the following part of that section requires the bonding.

Don, in your opinion a GEC run in EMT from a service disconnect to a water pipe would not require a bonding bushing within the service disconnect?

 

[texie]

Don, in your opinion a GEC run in EMT from a service disconnect to a water pipe would not require a bonding bushing within the service disconnect?

While I don't mean to answer for Don, IMO I think it has always been required and the new text of 250.64 (E) in the 2011 makes this clear.

 

[infinity]

While I don't mean to answer for Don, IMO I think it has always been required and the new text of 250.64 (E) in the 2011 makes this clear.

I agree with Don that this section could use some work in the wording because it's more confusing than necessary. The part that I don't get is that in my example a metallic, ferrous raceway (EMT) is connected to the metal service enclosure which is already connected to the GEC via the main bonding jumper so why would a bonding bushing connecting the GEC directly to the EMT be needed?

 

[texie]

I agree with Don that this section could use some work in the wording because it's more confusing than necessary. The part that I don't get is that in my example a metallic, ferrous raceway (EMT) is connected to the metal service enclosure which is already connected to the GEC via the main bonding jumper so why would a bonding bushing connecting the GEC directly to the EMT be needed?

I think the reasoning is the same as for bonding of a metallic service raceway, standard bonding methods are not adequate and must be done per 250.92(B), due to potentially high fault currents. Seems like I checked both the 2008 and the 2011 Handbook on this the other day and they both indicated bonding at the enclosure end even though there was a change in language for 2011. I don't have my handbooks here at home to recheck, maybe someone could check. As far as I know this has always been required and the 2011 language change was to make this clear. Maybe we should look up the ROP for the 2011 change?

 

[suemarkp]

I agree that it is the intent of that section, and we effectively have a choke otherwise, but does the text actually say that?

Now, a raceway can have open ends, with bushed holes for conductors, afaik, but up to this point, we a trusting that this is a sleeve.

What text exactly requires the bonding?

Perhaps what's hanging people up are the words "ferrous enclosure". I'm thinking anything iron/steel that surrounds the GEC is an enclosure. It isn't a just a box or cabinet. The EMT completely encircles the GEC, so it encloses it. Ferrous enclosures that aren't connected to bonded cabinets/boxes at both ends require their own bonding jumper at each end.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, in your opinion a GEC run in EMT from a service disconnect to a water pipe would not require a bonding bushing within the service disconnect?

That is correct, I don't see anything that requires "special" bonding methods where the ferrous raceway connects to the metallic service equipment enclosure.