GEC burial depth.Extending to supplemental

Status
Not open for further replies.

stew

Senior Member
Trying to find a code reference to required burial depth of GEC? Also had an inspector tell me that you cant use a bonding style jumper from the first electrode to a supplemental one on an existing installation. Specifically when you have only one ground rod which was the old requirement and you add a second as a supplemental and use 2 acorns and a jumper between the first and supplemental. Says GEC must be continous? I believe it only needs to be continuous to the first rod eh? Of course If I had a new 2 rod system I would run it unbroken all the way but when a supplemental is added to an existing???
 

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
Continuous only to the first electrode. Then it is a jumper you can use two acors on the first electrode.

Burial depth is 30" for the Grounding electrode (rod, plate...) not the grounding electrode conductor. I don't think there is a burial depth for the GEC.
 

stew

Senior Member
Well if there is I certainly cant find it either in the NEC or our Wa state WAC requirements. I think this is one of those deals that ,,well this is how I used to do it when I were an erectrician!
 

texie

Senior Member
Location
Fort Collins, Colorado
Occupation
Electrician, Contractor, Inspector
Trying to find a code reference to required burial depth of GEC? Also had an inspector tell me that you cant use a bonding style jumper from the first electrode to a supplemental one on an existing installation. Specifically when you have only one ground rod which was the old requirement and you add a second as a supplemental and use 2 acorns and a jumper between the first and supplemental. Says GEC must be continous? I believe it only needs to be continuous to the first rod eh? Of course If I had a new 2 rod system I would run it unbroken all the way but when a supplemental is added to an existing???

The inspector is wrong, the jumper from one rod to the next is compliant.
As for the burial depth, the code has been silent about this but many AHJs seem to require conformance with 300.5. The 2014 edition has made clear that conformance to 300.5 is not required. See 2014, 250.64(B), last sentence.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Yup the 2014 NEC fixes this once and for all. I've been battling people over this one for years. I'm glad the CMP accepted this proposal. :cool:
 

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
Or the last electrode, or the middle electrode.
So more precisely continuous only to the first electrode that the wire reaches. :)

Now, does the jumper have to be continuous to the next electrode?
 

tom baker

First Chief Moderator
Staff member
Washington State has a burial depth and protection requirement for the GEC. It was published in the Nov 2011 Electrical Currents, and that document is considered enforceable as the interpretation of the Chief Electrical Inspector. I always recommend Washington electricians subscribe to the Electrical Currents, sign up here: http://www.lni.wa.gov/Main/Listservs/Electrical.asp. Back issues of the EC are available at that web site.

The NEC has never required a burial depth requirement for the GEC

Here is the requirement
Inspectors have been encountering grounding electrode installations that are subject to physical damage. NEC
250.64(B) has specific requirements for protection of exposed grounding electrode conductors.
Exposed grounding electrode conductors:
? Smaller than 6 AWG must always have physical protection.
? Sized 6 AWG that are free from exposure to physical damage are permitted to run along the surface of
the building construction without protection where it is securely fastened to the building surface.
? Sized 4 AWG or larger must be protected where exposed to physical damage. This requirement was
changed from ?severe? physical damage in the 2005 NEC.
Physical damage is not defined in the NEC. The department?s electrical inspectors will consider the grounding
electrode conductor to not be exposed to physical damage when:
? The conductor is buried more than 12? deep in the earth outside the building?s footprint.
? Encased or covered by 2? of concrete or asphalt.
? The conductor is inside the building footprint and protected by the building?s structural elements or when
inside and determined, by the inspector, to not be subject to physical damage.
? Enclosed by a metal or nonmetallic raceway or enclosure. The raceway or enclosure must be approved to
protect from severe physical damage if it is not protected by appropriate physical barriers from contact
with vehicles, lawn mowers, and other equipment that might damage the conductor or enclosure.
If ferrous metal raceways or enclosures are used to protect the conductor, they must be bonded at both ends to
the conductor according to the requirements in NEC 250.64(E).
Problems with physical protection may be avoided by using grounding electrodes that do not require
supplemental electrodes or where the grounding electrode conductor can be installed solely inside the structure
of the building (e.g. concrete-encased electrode, exterior metal underground water pipe with 10? or more of the
pipe in direct contact with the earth, etc.).

Tom, Electrical Instructor in Washington State.
 

tom baker

First Chief Moderator
Staff member
Mike Holt has a graphic that shows the GEC only extends to the first electrode and then its a bonding jumper. I can't find it at the moment.
But recent changes in Art 250 have clarified that point.
 

stew

Senior Member
@ tom baker. I cant seem to find anywhere besides your reference wherin the Dept has actually added this requirement to any WAC verbage. will they do you think? I mean Wac is the document that governs IMHO,not a nrwsletter published in 2011. Just sayin. lol.
 

tom baker

First Chief Moderator
Staff member
@ tom baker. I cant seem to find anywhere besides your reference wherin the Dept has actually added this requirement to any WAC verbage. will they do you think? I mean Wac is the document that governs IMHO,not a nrwsletter published in 2011. Just sayin. lol.

Its not in the WAC, its in the Electrical Currents and as I mentioned the Chief Electrical Inspector has the ability to interpret the NEC, this interpenetration is in the Electrical Currents and I'm just saying its enforceable...

Do your self a favor and get signed up for the Electrical Currents
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top