Bonding for Other Systems-Intersystem Bonding Termination

[retfam]

In California the intersystem bonding termination is somewhat new to us. I can read 250.94 and see how this should be installed, but my question is, does this prohibit the continued practice of grounding the communication ground to a ufer. Let me explain. You would typically see a ufer with 3 bond clamps on it. 1 for the grounding electrode conductor, and 2 other for your communication wires. With this new requirement, if a contractor wants to still provide the 2 communication bonds to the ufer, does the code prohibit that. Does the communication bonds ("bonding for other systems") require they be put on this new external intersystem bonding? I would still require the installation of the intersystem bonding, but it would be empty in the example I used.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Our job is to provide the intersystem bonding whether the other utilities choose to use it is up to them. For some reason they don't like using it here and still use the split bolt. I install them and on a remo or service change I will sometimes move the utility ground to the clamp but it is not required of me.

 

[rexowner]

I generally also split bolt the #10 for the communications ground wires to the GEC, e.g. near where the Ufer is accessible,
which has always been fine and a lot cleaner than a number of ground clamps IMO.. Most of the jurisdictions around here also require the
intersystem bonding regardless, e.g. in new construction the argument being that even if you install cable and phone, then satellite can
come along. I would be interested to hear if it is any different in your neck of the woods.