250.53(G) Violation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Umm.....

Umm.....

Me again.......Roger, please forgive my ignorance, but are you saying that #6 awg is all that is required to connect the two rods?
Any chance you and Iwire can come to work with me for show and tell?
LOL!
 
Power Pig, (BTW I love the name) 250.66 (A)

(A) Connections to Rod, Pipe, or Plate Electrodes Where the grounding electrode conductor is connected to rod, pipe, or plate electrodes as permitted in 250.52(A)(5) or (A)(6), that portion of the conductor that is the sole connection to the grounding electrode shall not be required to be larger than 6 AWG copper wire or 4 AWG aluminum wire.
Click to expand...

Roger
 
roger said:
True, but the issue at hand is the inspector making up his own rules or not understanding what is required by the NEC.

Now if "it's a local amendment" comes into the conversation that would be a different story but, this is in the NEC forum.

Roger
Click to expand...

I've never been told if there was a local amendment. I've done what the inspectors have asked. Do what they ask, within reason, and pass your inspections. I've always had good rapport with the inspectors. In my twelve years of electrical, that is what has been required.
 
BackInTheHabit said:
I've never been told if there was a local amendment. I've done what the inspectors have asked. Do what they ask, within reason, and pass your inspections. I've always had good rapport with the inspectors. In my twelve years of electrical, that is what has been required.
Click to expand...

What ever makes you happy.

The problem with this statement "I've done what the inspectors have asked" is, where do you draw the line, do you just go with the flow regardless of whether it gets into your pocket?

I want to know the "formal" rules of the game when I start to play, not one referees or umpires own rules.


Roger
 
Last edited:
POWER_PIG said:
Me again.......Roger, please forgive my ignorance, but are you saying that #6 awg is all that is required to connect the two rods?
Click to expand...
If you have a water pipe as an electrode it would need to be full sized to what-ever you had from 250.66 and the required "Supplimental" rods could be #6. And need only be attached to the portion of water pipe that qualifies as an electrode. If you have only rods they would need to be full-sized from 250.66. See 250.53(D)+(E)
 
stickboy1375 said:
No, actually they would be sized from 250.66 (A) ;)
Click to expand...

Depending on where you start - you end up in the same place with the same sized conductor through exceptions or other requirements. A full sized water and/or steel, a #4 UFER and #6 to rods and plates etc. Unless they are the sole conductor to sole electrodes then 250.66.

250.53(E), and 250.66(A) roughly say the same thing different ways.:roll:

Commentary from 250.53E:
Section 250.53(E) correlates with 250.52(A)(5) or (6) and 250.66(A). For example, if a metal underground water pipe or the metal frame of the building or structure is used as the grounding electrode or as part of the grounding electrode system, Table 250.66 must be used for sizing the grounding electrode conductor. The size of the grounding electrode conductor or bonding jumper for ground rod or pipe or for plate electrodes between the service equipment and the electrodes is not required to be larger than 6 AWG copper or 4 AWG aluminum.
Click to expand...
 
e57 said:
Depending on where you start - you end up in the same place with the same sized conductor through exceptions or other requirements. A full sized water and/or steel, a #4 UFER and #6 to rods and plates etc. Unless they are the sole conductor to sole electrodes then 250.66.

250.53(E), and 250.66(A) roughly say the same thing different ways.:roll:

Commentary from 250.53E:
Click to expand...


I have ONLY rods at my house and I can tell you only #6 is required...
 
stickboy1375 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your post are saying If i'm only using rods I need to use table 250.66?
Click to expand...
No I guess I'm either not writing it right or you're mis-understanding me - probably me not writing it right..... :cool:

If the rods are supplimenting water - need only be #6 from 250.53(D)(1) and (D)(2) - which puts you at 250.53(E).

And if the sole electrode 250.66 which includes 250.66A - not table 250.66.

My bad..... Both say the same thing either way...
 
roger said:
What ever makes you happy.
Roger
Click to expand...

It's not what necessarily made me happy. That is what was required at that time and I was also working for others not for myself at the time. Several other electrical contractors made some waves with certain inspectors and they started having trouble getting things passed.

Those issues have since been resolved with the state Fire Marshal (SFM heads the electrical division in my state).

And I agree: "I want to know the "formal" rules of the game when I start to play, not one referees or umpires own rules."
 
BackInTheHabit said:
We are required to use two (2) 8' ground rods 8' apart on a 200 amp service. Whether this is new construction or a service upgrade.

And yes. It is new construction as I was originally referring to.

Grading contractors do work other than new construction.

I'm not the grading contractor but the electrical contractor.
Click to expand...


My point was that for new construction you should be be using a CEE and no rods at all. That is unless there is not rebar in the footing.
 
Sooo

Sooo

Call me thick headed, but I cannot wrap my fat head around this concept. If you utilize an underground metalic water pipe for your GEC connection it has to be sized in accordance with 250.66....right?. Additional connections would be considederd a bonding jumper 6awg max....right?
Ok, but if all you have, say at a residence is the two ground rods then the conductor from the service down to the first rod is to be sized from 250.66? or no?...........your saying that 2 rods only would fall under the 250.66a? I can clearly read thats whats its saying, but it seems to get a bit tricky when ya toss 250.66 in the mix.
 
POWER_PIG said:
Call me thick headed, but I cannot wrap my fat head around this concept.
Click to expand...

It's the NEC, not your head. :)

If you utilize an underground metalic water pipe for your GEC connection it has to be sized in accordance with 250.66....right?.
Click to expand...

Yes.

Additional connections would be considered a bonding jumper 6awg max....right?
Click to expand...

Yes, if the next electrode is a rod or plate electrode.

your saying that 2 rods only would fall under the 250.66a?
Click to expand...

Thats right.

Lets say you install a 4000 amp 480 volt service in the middle of nowhere.

It would be NEC compliant to drive two rods, connected with 6 AWG to the service and call it a day.

The connection of the rod to the earth will always have enough resistance that a 6 AWG will handle all the current flow the rod will.
 
POWER_PIG said:
Ok, but if all you have, say at a residence is the two ground rods then the conductor from the service down to the first rod is to be sized from 250.66? or no?...........
Click to expand...

If you are only using two rods the last sentence in 250.66(A) would apply

"shall not be required to be larger than 6 AWG copper wire or 4 AWG aluminum wire."

This would be the same for a 100 amp or a 3000 amp service.

POWER_PIG said:
your saying that 2 rods only would fall under the 250.66a? I can clearly read thats whats its saying, but it seems to get a bit tricky when ya toss 250.66 in the mix.
Click to expand...

In the case of rods, Table 250.66 has been taken out the picture by 250.66(A)

Edit: Or what Bob said ;)

Roger
 
Ok Ok...

Ok Ok...

Now I understand, Thanks to all for your time. I know of some local inspectors that may need to join this forum and get reaquainted with NEC for what it says, not what they think it says. LOL
 
Turn those inspectors on to Mike's Grounding versus Bonding.

Looks like this -

1173796973.jpg


It's a great one for killing confusion!​
 
POWER_PIG said:
Now I understand, Thanks to all for your time. I know of some local inspectors that may need to join this forum and get reaquainted with NEC for what it says, not what they think it says. LOL
Click to expand...

Every inspector I've ever met would benefit from this forum. I'm amazed at what some of the members here come up with, and in a good way. And even they say they benefit from the forum. Invite them over.:smile:
 
we just recently had and inspector red tag us for a rod that had to be installed in a concrete pad that had been poured right up next to the house. our guy drilled the concrete and installed the rod within about 3 inches of the siding to a depth of about 3 or 4 inches above the concrete. he taggged it because it was not all the way driven to at or below the concrete. had to chip the concrete out around the rod so the driver would fit into the acvity created. then we used quick crete to fill around it. a really time consumimg fix for a chicken s... call.
 
infinity said:
My point was that for new construction you should be be using a CEE and no rods at all. That is unless there is not rebar in the footing.
Click to expand...

There is rebar at the bottom of the footer. It has always been to much of a problem regarding the footer rebar. The inspector wants to inspect the connection, which I understand. But in most cases the footer is poured before the inspector could inspect the connection.

In lieu of the footer connection, we use two ground rods. Very few, if any, new homes around here have copper plumbing that could be used as the secondary grounding means. Therefore we use bare #4 copper for the two ground rods.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top