yes that is minimum but can you use #8? someone said you cannot.#10 AWG minimum conductor size, 40 amp OCPD.
Wrong. The MCA defines the smallest wire you can use, not the largest.yes that is minimum but can you use #8? someone said you cannot.
That was my point. but they said if used larger than the minimum you have to size the ground larger than the #10 that is proper for for 8. Is there something I am missing?Wrong. The MCA defines the smallest wire you can use, not the largest.
yes, actually they said you can but if you use more than minimum then the #10 ground for 8 must be upsized. I may be missing something.yes that is minimum but can you use #8? someone said you cannot.
I'm a proponent of the idea that the exception to 250.122(B) added in the 2020 NEC provides an escape clause for all the situations in which "if the load was larger, the smaller EGC would obviously be compliant." As that statement demonstrates that the smaller EGC is still sized "to provide an effective ground fault current path."Technically true
Yeah especially in residential with long runs of NM cable.Actually, I've never been a fan of opening up a disconnect and not seeing the wiring rated for the OCPD ahead of it , but, that's just me.
JAP>
Part of the problem is it is kind of written as a one size fits all rule.Technically true, but I would hope an inspector wouldn't pull that. The next AC unit may have an MCA of 31 and now you'd be ripping out that #10 and installing #8. And you'd still have a #10 EGC in the latter case.
I must be in real trouble because the AC tech who installed mine put in #6 NM cable because he only looked at the 50A breaker and not the MCA. Now I have a smaller AC unit on that same wire with an MCA in the high 20's and a 40A breaker.
Thanks. I read the exception that a qualified person can do something about an adequet grounding pat? did not quote that properly but do not have it ifron of me. Could someone explain that for me? ThanksI'm a proponent of the idea that the exception to 250.122(B) added in the 2020 NEC provides an escape clause for all the situations in which "if the load was larger, the smaller EGC would obviously be compliant." As that statement demonstrates that the smaller EGC is still sized "to provide an effective ground fault current path."
Cheers, Wayne
250.122 clearly permits a equipment grounding conductor to be #10 AWG CU for a 40A feeder with #8 CU.That was my point. but they said if used larger than the minimum you have to size the ground larger than the #10 that is proper for for 8.
The main text does not. The main text says that if that same circuit would be compliant with #10 Cu ungrounded conductors, then you've upsized the ungrounded conductors by using #8, so you must upsize the EGC.250.122 clearly permits a equipment grounding conductor to be #10 AWG CU for a 40A feeder with #8 CU.
You don't need to be a PE to recognize that the whether a ground fault path is effective is independent of what the load is. So changing the load from one type to another type, when the breaker stays the same or is downsized, and the conductors remain the same, does not change the effectiveness of the ground fault path.IMO, the reference to a "qualified person" in the exception would be someone like a P.E. with expertise in grounding,
The OP is proposing to use a 40A OCPD with a #10 equipment ground this is done and passes inspections every day.The main text does not. The main text says that if that same circuit would be compliant with #10 Cu ungrounded conductors, then you've upsized the ungrounded conductors by using #8, so you must upsize the EGC.
However, as this is unreasonable, the exception gives us an out.
Cheers, Wayne