Enforcement on grounding bridge use by utilities

[fmdell]

In central PA, we have been installing telecommunications grounding bridges for years as part of new service installations. But, I have NEVER seen a telephone co., cable co., or satalite co. use it - even when it is right beside there lateral drop, NID or whatever. On one service I did, I went back for something a couple months later (can't remember what), and the telephone utility, actually pulled the ground out of the grounding bridge and reinstalled one of their strap ground things on the meter base again. It's as if they don't even know what they are. In fact, on new buildings or during major renovations of buildings in which I crossed paths with the telecomunications people, I would remind them that a grounding bridge was available and I can't think of a time when they had any idea what I was talking about. The code should get a little more bullheaded with the people on the user's end of these grounding means.

This may be as much a matter of forcing telecommunications vendors to educate their installers better, but it would be nice to use language that makes them liable to comply with a rule that obliges them to use the grounding bridges.

 

[texie]

In central PA, we have been installing telecommunications grounding bridges for years as part of new service installations. But, I have NEVER seen a telephone co., cable co., or satalite co. use it - even when it is right beside there lateral drop, NID or whatever. On one service I did, I went back for something a couple months later (can't remember what), and the telephone utility, actually pulled the ground out of the grounding bridge and reinstalled one of their strap ground things on the meter base again. It's as if they don't even know what they are. In fact, on new buildings or during major renovations of buildings in which I crossed paths with the telecomunications people, I would remind them that a grounding bridge was available and I can't think of a time when they had any idea what I was talking about. The code should get a little more bullheaded with the people on the user's end of these grounding means.

This may be as much a matter of forcing telecommunications vendors to educate their installers better, but it would be nice to use language that makes them liable to comply with a rule that obliges them to use the grounding bridges.

In my experience this is a major problem everywhere. While at least in your case it sounds like they did ground to the building GES (albeit not in a compliant way) but I have seen many that are not connected to the building GES at all and this is a real problem. There are some AHJs that watch this closely, but not many in my experience.

 

[fmdell]

know what you mean!

know what you mean!

Yep, they are pretty good about grounding off somewhere here in central PA, but 250.94 should probably have a little more teeth and AHJ's should start aggressively pushing telecom companies to educate their installers. I noticed the state of Minnesota has web postings that state the case pretty strongly and demand compliance.

 

[rbalex]

This thread has been moved because it is not in compliance with the rules of this particular forum. Your local AHJ may not be enforcing rules it has no jurisdiction over, but I try to here.

 

[iwire]

For myself it would be hard for me to care any less about other trades compliance with the NEC. Its just really none of my business.

As far what the cable and phone companies do around here in my experience they do ground the systems they bring in. My cable drop is bonded to the water line, my old POTs line was bonded to water line in another place. IMO both of these bonds are better than the bond that some listed grounding interconnection devices I have seen provide.

 

[texie]

For myself it would be hard for me to care any less about other trades compliance with the NEC. Its just really none of my business.

As far what the cable and phone companies do around here in my experience they do ground the systems they bring in. My cable drop is bonded to the water line, my old POTs line was bonded to water line in another place. IMO both of these bonds are better than the bond that some listed grounding interconnection devices I have seen provide.

Well, I don't as a rule care to much about others trades on the job either. But in cases such as this, where others are connecting to a system that I am responsible for, I demand that the system demark be connected to the service GES. Now I don't get to worked up over exact compliance with 250.94 as long as it is connected to the GES. I draw the line where some think they can just use a separate GES as the are valid reasons for using the service GES.

 

[GoldDigger]

I draw a much stronger line where they mess with your wiring instead of just not using it!

 

[iwire]

I draw a much stronger line where they mess with your wiring instead of just not using it!

That is when I start caring as well.

 

[ptonsparky]

One of our State inspectors, who is a bit particular, says put the bridge where required, let the cable etc worry about their connections. I tend to agree.

 

[kwired]

Long before intersystem bonding terminations were required, or even before they requested a minimum of a short tail of conductor for other systems to connect to, I once had a phone company loosen an EMT set screw at the service panel and wrap his conductor around that screw:roll:

I have seen set screws for NM connectors used for this purpose as well, and of course the occasional clamp on a sill cock only to find the water pipe has nonmetallic sections or even is a nearly completely nonmetallic system.:slaphead: