EGC wire and metal boxes

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
My thoughts are simply that if a wire EGC is run into a box and it's associated circuit conductors splice or terminate in that box then the wire EGC must connect to the box.

You don't get to count the EMT and it associated fittings.
Click to expand...

Why can't you count the EMT and fittings? Can you please explain what I am missing?

It seems to me that 250.148(C) explicitly states that "equipment listed for grounding" can be used to connect EGCs to the box. If the EMT and fittings are listed for grounding, then they directly comply with the code section as a means of connecting the EGC wire to the box. EMT and fittings are equipment as evidenced in Article 100.
 
crossman said:
Why can't you count the EMT and fittings?
Click to expand...

'cause you can't. :D

I know that is about as lame an answer as I have ever given.

The only reason I can give you is from experience in the field, I have yet to meet an inspector that reads it like you want to read it.

It's the NEC it does not always make sense, :)

This thread Small conductors is a perfect example. The fact that it is a violation to run an 'undersized' wire EGC in a steel conduit but I can remove it altogether and I am good to go.
 
There are a number of sections where Article 250 should be changed. The term "equipment grounding conductor" needs to be replaced with the "term equipment grounding conductor of the wire type" so that sections like the one in this thread say what they really mean.
 
The entire point of my thread is "what does the code actually say" versus "what is being enforced".

Granted, what is being enforced is the reality of the job-site. However, a strict reading of the code is what I am talking about.

We have all complained vehemently on this site about lame inspectors making up their own rules. What is different about this?

As for the CMP, unfortunately I did not find any explanation of why they added the "equipment listed for grounding". Therefore, it is not up to me to determine what they "intended". We should be going by exactly what it says.

I guess I need to join the NFPA so I can ask them for a technical explanation?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
There are a number of sections where Article 250 should be changed. The term "equipment grounding conductor" needs to be replaced with the "term equipment grounding conductor of the wire type"
Click to expand...

don, I agree with you

don_resqcapt19 said:
so that sections like the one in this thread say what they really mean.
Click to expand...

except on this, I am not so sure that the intent is to have the EGC wire terminated to the box inside the box. I am thinking that this one means exactly what it says and that is what the CMP meant.
 
crossman said:
I am not so sure that the intent is to have the EGC wire terminated to the box inside the box. I am thinking that this one means exactly what it says and that is what the CMP meant.
Click to expand...

IMO this ROP section from the 2002 NEC disproves that.

5- 286 - (250-148): Accept

SUBMITTER: Noel Williams, Noel Williams Consulting

RECOMMENDATION: Revise the first sentence to read as
follows:
"Where more than one equipment grounding conductor enters
an outlet, device, or junction box, all such . . ." (the remainder
to be unchanged)

SUBSTANTIATION: The present requirement requires an
equipment grounding conductor pulled through a pull box to be
cut or tapped and connected to the box even though no similar
requirement applies to conduit bodies used for the same
purpose, and even though the other conductors running through
the box are permitted to be left intact. In the event that a metal
pull box is used with nonmetallic conduit or other wiring
methods that do not themselves provide for grounding of the box,
an equipment grounding conductor will be required to be run
with the circuit conductors and the box will be required to be
grounded by other provisions of Article 250, specifically 250-80 or
250-86 and Part F.

PANEL ACTION: Accept.

NUMBER OF PANEL MEMBERS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE: 17

VOTE ON PANEL ACTION:
AFFIRMATIVE: 17
Click to expand...
 
iwire said:
IMO this ROP section from the 2002 NEC disproves that.
Click to expand...
With this being the "good" part?:
SUBSTANTIATION: The present requirement requires an
equipment grounding conductor pulled through a pull box to be
cut or tapped and connected to the box
Click to expand...
 
Gentlemen,

The point is:

If the wire-type equipment grounding conductor is connected to the panel can, and the panel can is connected to the EMT, and if the EMT is connected to the box, then the wire-type EGC is indeed already connected to the box via equipment which is listed for grounding (assuming that the panel can and EMT and fittings is listed for grounding).

The above scenario most undoubtedly meets the code requirments as written in 250.148(C).

It can be said "Well, that isn't the way the inspectors enforce it" and "that isn't what the CMP intended" and that is well and good if we want to submit to overzealous inspectors or delve into the psychology of the CMP cerebral matter. However, based on what is written in 250.148(C), there is no need to have a jumper from the EGC wire to the box. The EGC wire is already connected to the box via equipment listed for grounding.
 
mivey said:
With this being the "good" part?:
Click to expand...

SUBSTANTIATION: The present requirement requires an
equipment grounding conductor pulled through a pull box to be
cut or tapped and connected to the box

So I cut the EGC wire in the box and make a splice with a code-compliant wirenut. That meets the first requirement that the EGC wire be cut or tapped.

Then I terminate the EGC to the ground bar in the panel. That meets the requirement that the EGC wire must be connected to the box via equipment listed for grounding.

I have met the literal requirements of 250.148(C).
 
Wait a sec!

That substantiation "proving" that the CMP wants the bonding jumper in the box is from the 2002 code?????

The 2008 code added a change to the 250.148(C) wording that substantially changes that substantiation from 2002.

Unfortunately I have found no substantiation for the change in the 2008 code. The change just sort of magically appearred in the code, without anything written about it.
 
:) Damn. This is getting good, Bob. Give me a minute to look at the exact wording of those grounded conductor sections....

Seems it says something like "no grounding connections shall be made to the grounded conductor on the load side of the service" or such.... let me think and read...
 
okay Bob, this one is easy. The grounded conductor is not attached to the box directly. It is attached to the box via the equipment grounding conductor. The Grounded conductor is only attached to the EGC at the service or at the source of a seperately derived system, in general.

No violation.:)
 
I really did not see a red tag there. :)


I am not sure where you heading with this, for me it is clear and as I enjoy passing inspections I will follow the herd. :)

Are you going to put in a proposal?
 
iwire said:
I really did not see a red tag there. :)


I am not sure where you heading with this, for me it is clear and as I enjoy passing inspections I will follow the herd. :)

Are you going to put in a proposal?
Click to expand...

Bob, I appreciate your humor. Mostly, all this is entertainment, my associates and I have been arguing code for nearly 30 years. I guess we like to find loopholes and such (or think we found loopholes?).

As for a proposal, really, that section is a little messed up when going from .148 to .148(C) mainly with the term "device". I really should give it more thought and do something instead of being lazy, just to see what happens.

But first, I or someone needs to request an interpretation so we know what they really intend by the section.
 
crossman said:
But first, I or someone needs to request an interpretation so we know what they really intend by the section.
Click to expand...

It is my understanding that they rarely actually provide interpretations and the best way to find out the intent is to put a proposal in and wait to see the panel statement.


30 years?

I don't believe it. :)

It has been fun, but I have to head off to work.
 
crossman said:
Spliced, yes. Terminated to the box... well, the code says it must be connected to the box. And one of the permissible means of connection is through the EMT and fittings.

Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

You aver that the EMT and fittings are a 'listed grounding device'?

I believe the 'or' is referring to grounding clips or grounding lugs and things of that nature.
 
crossman said:
SUBSTANTIATION: The present requirement requires an
equipment grounding conductor pulled through a pull box to be
cut or tapped and connected to the box

So I cut the EGC wire in the box and make a splice with a code-compliant wirenut. That meets the first requirement that the EGC wire be cut or tapped.

Then I terminate the EGC to the ground bar in the panel. That meets the requirement that the EGC wire must be connected to the box via equipment listed for grounding.

I have met the literal requirements of 250.148(C).
Click to expand...

I would say you are holding on for dear life at this point.
 
ike5547 said:
You aver that the EMT and fittings are a 'listed grounding device'?

I believe the 'or' is referring to grounding clips or grounding lugs and things of that nature.
Click to expand...

Are you looking at 2005 or 2008?

2008 added "equipment listed for grounding" to be used as a connection to the box.

"Equipment listed as grounding" includes EMT and fittings in my originally proposed scenario.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top