2014 Article 250.121

[Dennis Alwon]

Dennis, it is for both.

I spoke with this poster and what he wanted to do was to use the equipment grounding conductor between a transfer switch(service rated) and an panel that was the main service panel. When he added the transfer switch it was difficult to move the grounding electrode conductor from the now subpanel so he just upsized the equipment grounding conductor to the panel and connected it to the busbar on the subpanel where the original grounding electrode conductor was connected. Although this would probably work fine I feel that it is still a violation using the ground bar as a splice to make the grounding electrode conductor continuous.

 

[GoldDigger]

I spoke with this poster and what he wanted to do was to use the equipment grounding conductor between a transfer switch(service rated) and an panel that was the main service panel. When he added the transfer switch it was difficult to move the grounding electrode conductor from the now subpanel so he just upsized the equipment grounding conductor to the panel and connected it to the busbar on the subpanel where the original grounding electrode conductor was connected. Although this would probably work fine I feel that it is still a violation using the ground bar as a splice to make the grounding electrode conductor continuous.

But you would be OK with an irreversible crimp and tap which produced the same geometry, yes?

 

[Michael15956]

But you would be OK with an irreversible crimp and tap which produced the same geometry, yes?

Yes, in my opinion. In this case the inspector was ok with the ground bar connection.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

But you would be OK with an irreversible crimp and tap which produced the same geometry, yes?

Yes, but for some reason I don't like the idea of a double duty equipment grounding conductor and grounding electrode conductor. Perhaps if rods did more than what they do I would definitely be against the double use.

 

[Pharon]

I don't see any problem with it. Copper is copper. As long as the EGC/GEC is sized properly per Table 250.66 and installed per 250.64(C), I don't see it as being anything even close to a hazard. Especially considering that 99.99% of the time it won't have any current on it at all.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

I don't see any problem with it. Copper is copper. As long as the EGC/GEC is sized properly per Table 250.66 and installed per 250.64(C), I don't see it as being anything even close to a hazard. Especially considering that 99.99% of the time it won't have any current on it at all.

I have a tendency to agree (even if I am wire type bias) However, the concern that some will raise is the correlation with 250.68(C) and 250.64(C) and this new exception that will introduce connections in the dual purpose conductors that are not in accordance with 250.64(C)(1) through (4).