Grounding Electrode Conductor Zip tied to EMT

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello All
I work for the state of Washington on the capital campus. we have a above ground parking garage and the building that fed the service to the garage has been demoed. So they had to restrike the service to the garage. They put in a overhead mast and brought the wires into the garage to a disconnect. then feed the old service panels in the electric room of the garage. With the new service being in a new location they had to find a place to put ground rods. There is a planter attached to the garage and they put the ground rods there. This planter is about 150 feet from the service disconnect. they used emt to go from the disconnect to the old service panels about 300 feet away. between the service disconnect and the old service panels is the planter they put the ground rods in. Instead of putting the grounding electrode conductor in the conduit they strapped it to the outside of the emt for about 150 with zip ties. This is a public garage and anybody can walk in to it. If somebody wanted to they could cut that wire and take it and no more ground for the service. Seems to me they could have put a junction box were they had to jump into the planter and made it less visible. My question is : is it ok to zip tie the wire to the outside of the conduit? I have been looking in the code but I have not found anything. any help would be great.
thanks
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
The code does not seem to deal with deliberate damage such as theft. Off the top of my head I can't come up with any code provisions being violated with what you are describing.

However, I never run across any governmental entity that does not have some kind of minimum specifications that are required to be met for construction work of any kind that does not exceed code requirements. I would suggest looking there. Whoever did the work is almost certainly subject to those specs.
 

luckylerado

Senior Member
This may apply

250.64(B)
Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage.
Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its
enclosure shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it
is carried. Grounding electrode conductors shall be permitted
to be installed on or through framing members. A 4 AWG or
larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor shall
be protected if exposed to physical damage. A 6 AWG grounding
electrode conductor that is free from exposure to physical damage
shall be permitted to be run along the surface of the building
construction without metal covering or protection if it is securely
fastened to the construction; otherwise, it shall be protected in
rigid metal conduit RMC, intermediate metal conduit (IMC),
rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting
resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic tubing EMT, or cable
armor. Grounding electrode conductors smaller than 6 AWG
shall be protected in (RMC), IMC, PVC, RTRC, (EMT), or cable
armor. Grounding electrode conductors and grounding electrode
bonding jumpers shall not be required to comply with 300.5.
 

mgookin

Senior Member
Location
Fort Myers, FL
Hello All
I work for the state of Washington on the capital campus. .... This is a public garage and anybody can walk in to it. If somebody wanted to they could cut that wire and take it and no more ground for the service. ...
thanks

I used to work for a city and came across similar situations on occasion. I was in the building dept so I wore two hats. One hat was as the regulator enforcing code. Another hat was as owner's representative.

Usually if something was not a code issue but was of clear concern, just talking to the contractor about it sensibly would suffice. There's also a contract manager somewhere and maybe a project manager too. You can raise your concern with them if need be.

From reading your post it seems your concern is vagrants/ scrappers stealing the copper which is very common in urban areas. Your argument can be that the exposed copper for that length is an attractive nuisance which can and likely will result in leaving the electrical service without a required ground thereby accruing considerable liability to the owner (your employer).
 

tom baker

First Chief Moderator
Staff member
In Washington, we follow the electrical laws RCW 19.28 and electrical rules WAC 296-46B, but that monthly electrical newsletter Labor and Industries sends out "Electrical Currents" is enforceable. I don't have the month/year right now, but L&I requires the GEC to be protected in conduit or buried 12" deep.
I can get this information for you later today.
And I always suggest in my classes that electricians/trainees get on the mailing list for Electrical Currents (its been around since 1999),read them for general knowledge and the fact that there are enforceable requirements in them.
I am not sure, if your inspection is by the City of Olympia this may not apply. But in any case running the GEC in PVC conduit would be the best solution, and will comply with 300.11 as Don pointed out.
 
Last edited:

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
That would work IMO. Does not say conductor.

(B) Raceways Used as Means of Support. Raceways
shall be used only as a means of support for other raceways,
cables, or nonelectrical equipment under any of the
following conditions:

Is a GEC a cable? It certainly is not any of the other things. many places in the code where it refers to cables it often uses the term wires and cables which strongly implies a wire is not a cable.

ETA: There us at least one place in article 250 where it refers to a "wire type" EGC. That would seem to exclude cables from being wires, at least WRT EGCs.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for your help. Tom I found it in the electrical current.[FONT=Calibri,Bold][FONT=Calibri,Bold]Grounding Electrode Conductor
[/FONT]
[/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Bold][FONT=Calibri,Bold][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Calibri,Bold][FONT=Calibri,Bold]Protection From Physical Damage[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Bold][FONT=Calibri,Bold][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Calibri,Bold][FONT=Calibri,Bold][/FONT][/FONT]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.).

If I m reading this right because it is in a parking garage there could be physical damage to the conductor. So it should be installed in a conduit. Also article 300.11 does not say wires can be attached to raceways for support. I take wire and cable as a wire being a single conductor and a cable being a group of conductors like MC or NM-B. Mgookin you are correct about there being standards for our campus that supersede the code book. unfortunately there is nothing in the standards that address GEC on the outside of the pipe. Thank you Tom for the heads up on the Electrical Current newsletter. I got myself on the mailing list.:thumbsup:
 

tom baker

First Chief Moderator
Staff member
I found the Currents issue but you beat me to it. I used to teach that the currents are not enforceable only the laws and rules are, but there is an electrical law (I didn't know about) that gives the chief electrical inspector the ability to interpret the NEC.
I don't like having requirements in a newsletter, would rather have them in the rules/WAC. Maybe I will make that a proposal when the WACS are opened up for comments next year for the 2017 NEC amendments.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I thought of that earlier but the conduit is empty.


We use empty conduit all the time to support fixtures and cables.

That is direction I am looking at as well. If there is no wiring in the "raceway" - it is not a raceway, it is just some EMT that was used for providing support for the GEC. Had they used some not listed general use galvanized piping instead, they sort of have same thing but maybe a little less confusion.
 

jumper

Senior Member
I thought of that earlier but the conduit is empty.


We use empty conduit all the time to support fixtures and cables.

That is direction I am looking at as well. If there is no wiring in the "raceway" - it is not a raceway, it is just some EMT that was used for providing support for the GEC. Had they used some not listed general use galvanized piping instead, they sort of have same thing but maybe a little less confusion.

Go back and read the OP. The conduit has feeder wires in it.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Go back and read the OP. The conduit has feeder wires in it.

You know I voted for you as a mod? You are starting to make me regret that. :lol:

they used emt to go from the disconnect to the old service panels about 300 feet away. between the service disconnect and the old service panels is the planter they put the ground rods in. Instead of putting the grounding electrode conductor in the conduit they strapped it to the outside of the emt for about 150 with zip ties.

Yeah, I can see that.


I had focused on this part below, it never occurred to me the OP was suggesting running the GEC in the conduit with a feeder.

Instead of putting the grounding electrode conductor in the conduit they strapped it to the outside of the emt for about 150 with zip ties.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
You know I voted for you as a mod? You are starting to make me regret that. :lol:



Yeah, I can see that.


I had focused on this part below, it never occurred to me the OP was suggesting running the GEC in the conduit with a feeder.
I missed that as well. I may not ordinarily opt to run it as was in the OP, but wouldn't reject it either if I were an inspector. I often have zip tied a GEC to the service raceway - usually just for a short straight run from the meter, disconnect, etc. to grade though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top