2020 NEC : GEC and bonding screw with “emergency disconnect, service equipment”

[don_resqcapt19]

Informational notes are not enforceable, it falls back to Section 100 itself.

It is information and has nothing to do with being enforceable...it simply tells you what a Class A GFCI is.

I have not seen a regular black gas pipe in new construction in decades.

That does not change the fact that is a dangerous product. I would never live in a house that uses CSST, no would I live in a house that uses the lightweight engineered lumber that is common today.

We agree on this, thank you.

I don't think that we do. I see the metal underground water pipe system carrying current as a good thing, not a hazard. It often prevents the damage to equipment and even fires when the service neutral becomes open. However, a metal water service and metal underground water mains are becoming rare.

230.85 condotion3 for em disconnect upstream main service disconnect
That is not our discuss
Which code article allow ng bond inside home?

If the outside emergency disconnect is marked "EMERGENCY DISCONNECT, NOT SERVICE EQUIPMENT", then 250.24(C) REQUIRES a main bonding jumper at the inside service equipment as the outside disconnect is not service equipment.

So by manipulating labelling only,
non complaint install made to code complaint install

And that is the very intention of the language specifying the marking of the emergency disconnect.

 

[Deltaforce]

Ultimately people in the home suffer or not
Check conscience playing labeling em disconnect!

 

[Eddie702]

@don_resqcapt19 said

"CSST is so hazardous, it should not be permitted. That is exactly what the original investigations of fires related to that product said. When the CSST bonding requirements were submitted to CMP 5 for inclusion in the NEC, those proposals were rejected because the submitters could not provide any technical evidence the the bonding would prevent the CSST related fires. To this day, there are no special bonding requirements in the NEC for CSST."

I agree 100%. This stuff is junk and should never have been allowed. MA. actually, banned it for a while when the first building burned down and the bonding/grounding issue came up. But they eventually let it back in.

And I don't just say its junk for electrical reasons I was also a Master Gasfitter. You wouldn't run gas through LMFC which is probably more substantial than CSST. The inside is like tinfoil. gas is just too hazardous for CSST to be used.

 

[B677]

Guys Humor me here please : Mike Holt says in this video "... can originate at the meter can OR at the service disconnect" Whereas the actual code states "...any accessible point" from the load end of the service conductors to the service disconnect.

 

[infinity]

Whereas the actual code states "...any accessible point" from the load end of the service conductors to the service disconnect.

Is that a direct quote of the code language?

 

[roger]

Mike was simply answering the question as it was asked

 

[roger]

If the question had included the weather head he would have added that in his answer

 

[WD40]

Say you have a duplex that has several existing grounding electrodes idk a driven ground rod, a metallic waterpipe in direct contact with 10' of dirt, metal in-ground support structure in direct contact with earth for 10' or more, and a concrete encased electrode or any of the others in 250.50.
250.24 states that each service shall have a grounding electrode conductor connected to the grounded conductor at each service.
Now say you are doing the OP's service EM disconnect, service panel inside, and the ground rod, and building steel are near the EM disconnect where as the water pipe and concrete encased electrode are next to the service panel, it it allowable to use the neutral to bond these parts of the grounding electrode system? Simply land in nearest panel? Or should they all tie together say at the building steel then one GEC to the service disconnect?

 

[roger]

Now say you are doing the OP's service EM disconnect, service panel inside, and the ground rod, and building steel are near the EM disconnect where as the water pipe and concrete encased electrode are next to the service panel, it it allowable to use the neutral to bond these parts of the grounding electrode system? Simply land in nearest panel? Or should they all tie together say at the building steel then one GEC to the service disconnect?

Say all the raceways before the service disconnect (yes Including the EM disconnect) are RMC, what's the problem? The Neutral fault clearing path is common to all of them, can't be avoided.

 

[WD40]

Say all the raceways before the service disconnect (yes Including the EM disconnect) are RMC, what's the problem?

I am not asking about that, I am asking if a neutral can be used as a GEC tap to tie two different grounding electrode systems together?

 

[roger]

I am not asking about that, I am asking if a neutral can be used as a GEC tap to tie two different grounding electrode systems together?

There would only be one GES and 250.64(C)&(D) would be the place to look for the GE installation. IMO no, the Neutral can not be used for a jumper or to connect jumpers.

 

[B677]

Is that a direct quote of the code language?

Mike was simply answering the question as it was asked

Let me rephrase maybe this way is clearer.

All the literature, videos and diagrams showing the GEC connection refer to the ED as “service disconnect” I think that it would be clearer if the term “emergency disconnect” would be used because an emergency disconnect can encompass a service disconnect but a service disconnect does not have to be an emergency disconnect

I still agree that 250.24 does allow for the GEC to originate at the ED (despite the three different designations) because of the words “from”, “to” and “accessible point”.

I also understand that the ED should have the green screw installed to bond the metal case to the neutral (whether it’s a service disconnect or not)

 

[infinity]

I still agree that 250.24 does allow for the GEC to originate at the ED (despite the three different designations) because of the words “from”, “to” and “accessible point”.

Correct. The EM disconnect would be between the two points where the GEC is allowed to connnect.

I also understand that the ED should have the green screw installed to bond the metal case to the neutral (whether it’s a service disconnect or not)

Correct. Since there are no EGC's upstream from the servcie disconnect the enclosure must be bonded to the neutral for ground fault clearing of a fault to the enclosure.

 

[garbo]

Old old school.and still believe what we were taught many years ago that any conductive system, piping, duct work etc.that could become energized should be grounded. If a home had a noise /vibration isolation piece on supply duct work we would run a #10 copper wire from nearest copper water line. Believe its safer to have interior copper water lines grounded ( or bonded if that's the correct term ) even if feed by a plastic underground water pipe. Only came across it once but a house had a stainless steel kitchen sink without a garbage disposal , PEX water lines & plastic drain line. Attached a ground wire to two of the metal clips that hold sink in place. Afterwards used my solenoid type tester ( old Wiggies ) to test it & trip near by counter top GFCI receptacle when I went from GFCI energised slot to sink.I started as an apprentice working with an electrician who was great at troubleshooting & bending what he always called rigid conduit. He learned the trade before WW2 and had to beg him to let us run EMT indoors. Poor guy never ran EMT or wiremold until 1970 but insisted on pulling a ground wire inside of every conduit run.

 

[wwhitney]

IMO no, the Neutral can not be used for a jumper or to connect jumpers.

250.24(A)(1) succinctly tells you where the non-electrode end of the GEC may terminate for a service: "any accessible point from the load end of the overhead service conductors, service drop, underground service conductors, or service lateral to the terminal or bus to which the grounded service conductor is connected at the service disconnecting means."

Is there a section that similarly tells you where a grounding electrode bonding jumper may terminate, and which excludes terminating directly on the grounded service conductor?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[roger]

250.24(A)(1) succinctly tells you where the non-electrode end of the GEC may terminate for a service: "any accessible point from the load end of the overhead service conductors, service drop, underground service conductors, or service lateral to the terminal or bus to which the grounded service conductor is connected at the service disconnecting means."

Is there a section that similarly tells you where a grounding electrode bonding jumper may terminate, and which excludes terminating directly on the grounded service conductor?

Cheers, Wayne

250.24 has already been covered in the thread and for your question, the closest I know of is 250.64(C)&(D) and since the Grounded Conductor is not included in either is the reason I say no.

 

[roger]

After rereading your question I need to add that the GEC connection itself can be made directly to the Grounded Conductor but it can not be used as a jumper to other electrodes

 

[WD40]

There would only be one GES and 250.64(C)&(D) would be the place to look for the GE installation. IMO no, the Neutral can not be used for a jumper or to connect jumpers.

This what the inspection agency here has been passing:
Typical 100A service:
EM disconnect with a #6 to a ground rod --- SE cable to basement panel ---
in basement service panel #6 bare to water pipe
The SE cable is being used to bond the two grounding electrode systems together.

 

[roger]

This what the inspection agency here has been passing:
Typical 100A service:
EM disconnect with a #6 to a ground rod --- SE cable to basement panel ---
in basement service panel #6 bare to water pipe
The SE cable is being used to bond the two grounding electrode systems together.

So they're using the basement connection to satisfy 250.104.

 

[wwhitney]

and for your question, the closest I know of is 250.64(C)&(D) and since the Grounded Conductor is not included in either is the reason I say no.

But 250.64(C) and (D) speak to the GEC, not to a bonding jumper. And 250.53(C), which covers bonding jumpers, refers to compliance with 250.64(A), (B), and (E), explicitly excluding (C) and (D). So I don't see how 250.64(C) and (D) are relevant to where a bonding jumper may terminate.

After rereading your question I need to add that the GEC connection itself can be made directly to the Grounded Conductor but it can not be used as a jumper to other electrodes

Say we have two ground rods, that's it, and we have two places on the grounded service conductor where we may connect, the meter and the separate service disconnect. Possible arrangements are:

(1) One GEC at one location goes to one ground rod. The other ground rod is connected via a jumper to the first ground rod, or to that GEC. This certainly complies with Article 250.

(2) Two GECs, one at one location to one ground rod, one at the other location to the other ground rod. Each piece of wire satisfies the rules for a GEC, i.e. is continuous. This is OK?

(3) A GEC at one location to one ground rod, a spliced bonding jumper at the other location to the other ground rod. I gather this is what you are saying does not comply with Article 250?

I guess I'm having trouble finding text in Article 250 that would differentiate (1) from (3) and says (1) is allowed, but (3) is not. It seems like there's nothing that says exactly where a bonding jumper may terminate.

Cheers, Wayne