CODE 250.66 CONTRADICTION..?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

altarengineering

Member
Table 250.66 specifies the ground electrode conductor for a services, However section 250.66(A) states "that portion of the conductor that is the sole connection to the grounding electrode shall not be required to be larger than 6AWG cooper wire or 4AWG aluminum wire."

This section (A) and the table seem to contradict themselves. I've read an interpretation explaining the limitation of #6 was for scenarios in which only one grounding electrode was used. Does anyone have any insight as to the interpretation, application, or intent of 250.66(A)?
 
altarengineering said:
Table 250.66 specifies the ground electrode conductor for a services, However section 250.66(A) states "that portion of the conductor that is the sole connection to the grounding electrode shall not be required to be larger than 6AWG cooper wire or 4AWG aluminum wire."

This section (A) and the table seem to contradict themselves. I've read an interpretation explaining the limitation of #6 was for scenarios in which only one grounding electrode was used. Does anyone have any insight as to the interpretation, application, or intent of 250.66(A)?
Click to expand...
250.66 Size of Alternating-Current Grounding Electrode
Conductor. The size of the grounding electrode conductor at
the service, at each building or structure where supplied by a
feeder(s) or branch circuit(s), or at a separately derived system
of a grounded or ungrounded ac system shall not be less than
given in Table 250.66, except as permitted in 250.66(A)
through (C).
Click to expand...

Paragraph 250.66 is what directs you to table 250.66 except as permitted in 250.66 (A) through (C). There is no contradiction.
 
altarengineering said:
Table 250.66 specifies the ground electrode conductor for a services, However section 250.66(A) states "that portion of the conductor that is the sole connection to the grounding electrode shall not be required to be larger than 6AWG cooper wire or 4AWG aluminum wire."

This section (A) and the table seem to contradict themselves. I've read an interpretation explaining the limitation of #6 was for scenarios in which only one grounding electrode was used. Does anyone have any insight as to the interpretation, application, or intent of 250.66(A)?
Click to expand...

As other post in the above having stated, he's 100% accurate. There's not contradiction, but only a better understanding. So in all respect, as requested, going attempt offering a better quick understanding. It's not the whole picture, but going lay-out some reading in assisting you w/ better understanding into your question, in getting you to 250.66(A) & with a better understanding.. Keeping this in mind about the NEC, the difference in understanding, could be the difference in just one word. We'll be visiting article section(s) 250.50 & 250.52 & 250.53 & 250.66

Part III
Article 250.50 Grounding Electrode System
All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) though (A)(7) that are present @ each building or structure served shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. Where none of these grounding electrodes exist, one or more of the grounding electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) though (A)(8) shall be installed and used.

Article 250.52 (read in entirely)

Article 250.53 (read in entirely)
&
Article 250. 66 (not the Table)
* In reading those three(3) article sections, it will assist in clarity into above question. - Have a safe day.-
 
Perhaps not the intent of this thread or on par with the point you are trying to make but it needs to be said: article 250 in its entirety needs to be demolished and re-built brand new from the ground up on a set of established theories not well known to most in the industry let alone the code making panel members.
 
mbrooke said:
Perhaps not the intent of this thread or on par with the point you are trying to make but it needs to be said: article 250 in its entirety needs to be demolished and re-built brand new from the ground up on a set of established theories not well known to most in the industry let alone the code making panel members.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're volunteering ;)
 
Joe.B said:
Sounds like you're volunteering ;)
Click to expand...

Oh, dude, I'd post my version of article 250 here if I were not to attract detractors like flies on honey. People are freighted when their version of reality is exposed for the fantasy that it really is.
 
Haha yeah I hear you. Maybe someday they'll fall back to the original building code by Hammurabi. “If a builder has built a house for a man and his work is not strong, and if the house he has built falls in and kills the householder, that builder shall be slain.”
 
Joe.B said:
Haha yeah I hear you. Maybe someday they'll fall back to the original building code by Hammurabi. “If a builder has built a house for a man and his work is not strong, and if the house he has built falls in and kills the householder, that builder shall be slain.”
Click to expand...


At this point article 250 has been falling as much as it has been standing... I think the saying of not trusting the builder has been vindicated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top