Article 250.64 (D) Multiple Disconnecting Means Seperate Enclosures

[Bigbri0104]

Hello Everyone,

On a recent installation for a two-family dwelling 200-amp service upgrade. The job we were working on was flagged. The inspector is stating I need to install a grounding wire from each service disconnect enclosure to a common grounding electrode conductor. Our state NJ is on the 2020 NEC edition. The inspector cited article 250.64 section (D) (1) saying the grounding electrode tap shall extend to the inside or each disconnecting means enclosure. I've provided a picture of the installation

The installation of the grounding electrode conductor from the ground rods and the water bond is routed through 1/2 PVC and terminates onto a ground bar that is threw bolted in the wireway. From there a properly sized jumper/bonding wire terminates from the ground bar to the grounded (neutral) conductor via Ilsco tap in the wireway. Is this installation compliant with the grounding electrode conductor and water bond? If I'm reading the charging language correctly from 250.64 (D) it states the grounding electrode connections shall be made in accordance with 250.64 (D)(1), 250.64 (D)(2) or 250.64 (D)(3). Does the OR in that statement grant permission to use any of three methods (D) (1), (D) (2) or (D) (3)? If so then this installation would be compliant with 250.64 (D) (3) option (1) grounded service conductor,
I have seen illustrations of this installation in the NEC Handbook.

My goal is to understand if I'm interpreting the code correctly.

Thanks

 

[letgomywago]

Say ok put it in the weather head and ask him if he'll let it fly.

I agree the OR means any option is acceptable otherwise it would use the word AND or "all of the following conditions" or something like that.

 

[Bigbri0104]

Say ok put it in the weather head and ask him if he'll let it fly.

I agree the OR means any option is acceptable otherwise it would use the word AND or "all of the following conditions" or something like that.

Already did

 

[electrofelon]

In general your approach is sound, although it does sound like the gec is not continuous to where it is connected to the grounded conductor. If the wire way needs bonding, you should have used a lay-in lug to pass the gec through it, or mounted a neutral bar in there and landed the grounded conductors and the gec to it.

 

[augie47]

I'm not totally clear on the wireway connections but the method used doe meet the NEC.
Your GEC can originate at any point from the attachment to the POCO drop to the disconnects.
Were I building that service I would do so just as you did.
Looks like a quality installation to me.

 

[infinity]

Do you have any photos of the equipment without the covers on?

As stated it doesn't matter where the GEC connects to the neutral as long as it's between the service point at the top where the drop connects to the servcie condcutors and the service disconnect. Connection of the GEC to the neutral within the wireway is a code compliant location for that connection.

How is the ground bar mounted in the wireway, did you remove all of the paint behind it?

 

[Bigbri0104]

Sorry I didn't take a picture of the bonding and grounding inside the wireway. I sketched a copy and took a picture hopefully this helps. The bonding jumper from the ground bar to the islco tap would not constitute as continuous? If I were to switch where the GEC terminates on the ground bar, then terminate it to the grounded neutral conductor on the Ilsco tap. That would comply with 250.64 (C)?

 

[Bigbri0104]

Do you have any photos of the equipment without the covers on?

As stated it doesn't matter where the GEC connects to the neutral as long as it's between the service point at the top where the drop connects to the servcie condcutors and the service disconnect. Connection of the GEC to the neutral within the wireway is a code compliant location for that connection.

How is the ground bar mounted in the wireway, did you remove all of the paint behind it?

Yes the paint was scratched off behind the ground bar

 

[infinity]

The bonding jumper from the ground bar to the islco tap would not constitute as continuous? If I were to switch where the GEC terminates on the ground bar, then terminate it to the grounded neutral conductor on the Ilsco tap.

Bonding jumpers are not the same as a GEC and are not required to be continuous. Since you removed the paint and through bolted the ground bar is properly installed. 250.64(D)(3)(3) would permit a SSBJ to connect the GEC to the neutral.

 

[Bigbri0104]

Bonding jumpers are not the same as a GEC and are not required to be continuous. Since you removed the paint and through bolted the ground bar is properly installed. 250.64(D)(3)(3) would permit a SSBJ to connect the GEC to the neutral.

I'm assuming the picture helped? Thanks Rob. My next question is how do I approach this inspector LOL! because we have been conversing back and forth

 

[infinity]

My next questions is how do I approach this inspector LOL!

Just send him the applicable code sections and with an explanation of your interpretation.

You can post them here first if you would like someone to critique it. One other question each servce disconnect has a MBJ installed?

 

[Bigbri0104]

Just send him the applicable code sections and with an explanation of your interpretation.

You can post them here first if you would like someone to critique it. One other question each servce disconnect has a MBJ installed?

Does the bonding screw in each service enclosure serve as the "MBJ" main bonding jumper? Just to make sure I went in article 100 - Bonding Jumper, Main. The screw provided in the service enclosure does bond the grounded circuit conductor and the equipment grounding conductor, so I would say yes?

 

[infinity]

Does the bonding screw in each service enclosure serve as the "MBJ" main bonding jumper? Just to make sure I went in article 100 - Bonding Jumper, Main. The screw provided in the service enclosure does bond the grounded circuit conductor and the equipment grounding conductor, so I would say yes?

Yes. Each service disconnect would be required to have a MBJ. Each service disconnect does not require a GEC if the connection to the neutral is already established upstream or ahead of the service disconnects which in this case is in the wireway.

 

[Bigbri0104]

Thanks Rob! Ill sight section 250.64 (D) explaining the NEC is giving the permission to use 250.64 (D)(1) (D)(2) or (D)(3) , then which allows me to use (3) common location where I terminated the grounding electrode conductor in the wireway ahead of the service disconnects.

Thank you everyone for support.

 

[Fred B]

Hello Everyone,

On a recent installation for a two-family dwelling 200-amp service upgrade. The job we were working on was flagged. The inspector is stating I need to install a grounding wire from each service disconnect enclosure to a common grounding electrode conductor. Our state NJ is on the 2020 NEC edition. The inspector cited article 250.64 section (D) (1) saying the grounding electrode tap shall extend to the inside or each disconnecting means enclosure. I've provided a picture of the installation

The installation of the grounding electrode conductor from the ground rods and the water bond is routed through 1/2 PVC and terminates onto a ground bar that is threw bolted in the wireway. From there a properly sized jumper/bonding wire terminates from the ground bar to the grounded (neutral) conductor via Ilsco tap in the wireway. Is this installation compliant with the grounding electrode conductor and water bond? If I'm reading the charging language correctly from 250.64 (D) it states the grounding electrode connections shall be made in accordance with 250.64 (D)(1), 250.64 (D)(2) or 250.64 (D)(3). Does the OR in that statement grant permission to use any of three methods (D) (1), (D) (2) or (D) (3)? If so then this installation would be compliant with 250.64 (D) (3) option (1) grounded service conductor,
I have seen illustrations of this installation in the NEC Handbook.

My goal is to understand if I'm interpreting the code correctly.

Thanks

Not sure exactly the issue.
1 AFA The water bond. May or may not be part of the GES depending on the length of the metallic pipe if there is one on exterior underground, but at least would be bonded to each panel sized for reason: "potential to be energized".
2 Looks like maybe your GEC is brought up into your wireway above the meters. If that is accurate then it may have an issue related to bonding jumper in the disconnects and it being metal continuously connected from the Wireway through the meter and the disconnects. Parallel paths. Internal pictures may clarify.
3 Correct that any one of the methods may be used, but IMO the cleanest that avoids issues with inspections as it is the clearest visibly confirmed compliance is (D)(1). (D)(3) has an added requirement that may not be easily visibly apparent "The connection shall be made with exothermic welding or a connector listed as grounding and bonding equipment."

 

[infinity]

2 Looks like maybe your GEC is brought up into your wireway above the meters. If that is accurate then it may have an issue related to bonding jumper in the disconnects and it being metal continuously connected from the Wireway through the meter and the disconnects. Parallel paths. Internal pictures may clarify.

Yes the GEC terminates with the wireway. Parallel paths for the neutral are permitted when using metal raceways ahead of the service disconnects so that it not an issue.

 

[electrofelon]

Sorry I didn't take a picture of the bonding and grounding inside the wireway. I sketched a copy and took a picture hopefully this helps. The bonding jumper from the ground bar to the islco tap would not constitute as continuous? If I were to switch where the GEC terminates on the ground bar, then terminate it to the grounded neutral conductor on the Ilsco tap. That would comply with 250.64 (C)?

I agree with Rob post #9, and retract my concern expressed in post #4. I thought the GEC had to land directly to the grounded conductor for the common location method.

 

[Bigbri0104]

Do you have any photos of the equipment without the covers on?

As stated it doesn't matter where the GEC connects to the neutral as long as it's between the service point at the top where the drop connects to the servcie condcutors and the service disconnect. Connection of the GEC to the neutral within the wireway is a code compliant location for that connection.

How is the ground bar mounted in the wireway, did you remove all of the paint behind it?

Morning Rob,

I've posted pics of where the ground wire from the ground rods terminate & where the water bond terminates.
I've been in discussion with the electrical sub code official. He has stated the a ground wire needs to terminate in each disconnect, then terminate back in the trough where I have the ground bar installed. He also has consulted with another electrical sub-code official and has concluded still that a ground wire needs to terminate from each service disconnect back to the common ground bar installed in the trough.
I don't want to insult anyone or rub inspectors the wrong way, but is it worth it to have the state inspector (NJ) get involved? That's what the sub-code official stated over the phone. Thoughts?

 

[electrofelon]

Morning Rob,

I've posted pics of where the ground wire from the ground rods terminate & where the water bond terminates.
I've been in discussion with the electrical sub code official. He has stated the a ground wire needs to terminate in each disconnect, then terminate back in the trough where I have the ground bar installed. He also has consulted with another electrical sub-code official and has concluded still that a ground wire needs to terminate from each service disconnect back to the common ground bar installed in the trough.
I don't want to insult anyone or rub inspectors the wrong way, but is it worth it to have the state inspector (NJ) get involved? That's what the sub-code official stated over the phone. Thoughts?

Yes, these people don't know what they're talking about and apparently don't know their way around the code book to look it up.

 

[augie47]

I see no reason for a conductor from each disconnect. You have a MBJ in each disconnect so they are bonded to the neutral. Assuming they have a hub that would bond the nipple between the disconnect and the wireway.
Agree with electrofelon in that you are dealing with folks who don't understand he Code. You can try to convince them or comply with the silly request.