Finally 250.66

Status
Not open for further replies.
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
"This term sole connection is referring to the only connection to the actual grounding electrode itself, and not necessarily a sole or single ground rod. Using the ground rod scenario as an example, if the singular grounding electrode in question consists of two ground rods (one rod supplementing the other), the grounding electrode conductor and the bonding jumper to the second ground rod
would be considered the sole connection to this grounding electrode system."

http://iaeimagazine.org/magazine/2013/09/16/sole-connections/
 
This has been discussed before and yes clarification was needed. Dennis one of Moderators wrote on of the proposals.

5-130 Log #163 NEC-P05 Final Action: Accept in Principle
(250.66(A))
________________________________________________________________
Submitter: Dennis Alwon, Alwon Electric Inc.
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
(A) Connections to Rod, Pipe, or Plate Electrodes. Where the grounding
electrode conductor is connected to rod, pipe, or plate electrodes as permitted
in 250.52(A)(5) or (A)(7), that portion of the conductor that is the sole
connection to the grounding electrode(s) shall not be required to be larger than
6 AWG copper wire or 4 AWG aluminum wire.
Substantiation: In the case where 2 ground rods are driven to satisfy 250.56
and the (GEC) grounding electrode conductor is looped continuously from the
service thru the first rod to the second rod then you would need a conductor
that is larger than a 6 awg in many cases. Thus if you had a service that
required a 3/0 GEC then you could no longer loop the continuous #6 to both
rods but rather the 3/0 would be required. The plural of electrode would clarify
this. I do understand that another option is to run two 6 awg, one to each rod,
however, continuous run of the GEC to the rods is the preferred method by
many. This is being required in some areas and clarification is needed.
Acceptance or rejection of this proposal will give me my answer. Thank you.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle
Panel Statement: See the panel action on Proposal 5-131, which meets the
submitter?s intent.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
Click to expand...
 
It's makes sense that Keith Lofland was the author. Dennis and Keith discussed this on the open floor at the 2013 NC electrical institute.

Roger
 
Yes, my great contribution (s) :lol:. It did seem to clarify the issue which we all pretty much knew anyway. When I asked them if I could run a jumper between the two rods there was no pause- of course they said. I stated that the code said sole electrode- then there was pause. Easy fix.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Yes, my great contribution (s) :lol:. It did seem to clarify the issue which we all pretty much knew anyway. When I asked them if I could run a jumper between the two rods there was no pause- of course they said. I stated that the code said sole electrode- then there was pause. Easy fix.
Click to expand...

Great(est) maybe -only no!:thumbsup:
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Yes, my great contribution (s) :lol:. It did seem to clarify the issue which we all pretty much knew anyway. When I asked them if I could run a jumper between the two rods there was no pause- of course they said. I stated that the code said sole electrode- then there was pause. Easy fix.
Click to expand...
Hmmm..I think at least "one" person on the event code panel in attendance agreed;)
 
jxofaltrds said:
Also note that the bonding jumper is a separate conductor.

View attachment 11086
Click to expand...

If there were another Service Disconnect on the other side of the meter in the picture. Wouldn't you then need to extend the Grounding Electrode conductor to both of the Service Disconnects and terminate to the Grounded Conductor in each per 250.64 D1,2&3?

Jap>
 
jap said:
If there were another Service Disconnect on the other side of the meter in the picture. Wouldn't you then need to extend the Grounding Electrode conductor to both of the Service Disconnects and terminate to the Grounded Conductor in each per 250.64 D1,2&3?
Click to expand...


View attachment 11086

No, take note that the GEC is correctly bonded in the meter can. Even if there were two disconnects, IMO bonding a GEC in both is a bad idea since it puts the GEC in parallel with the neutral.

groundrodloop.jpg


Roger​
 
roger said:



View attachment 11086

No, take note that the GEC is correctly bonded in the meter can. Even if there were two disconnects, IMO bonding a GEC in both is a bad idea since it puts the GEC in parallel with the neutral.

groundrodloop.jpg


Roger​
Click to expand...
Roger,

Tying all GE's together and to the earth can be argued does the same thing...While the meter location application does seem to minimize this, the model to which you have drawn is excessive but less likely to be called out at a violation in my opinion. Why, because it can be argued the same violation happens when you install a neutral in a metallic nipple or raceway between a meter and a service disconnection means (enclosure) as well and no one ever cites 250.6(A). Well almost no one.
 
MasterTheNEC said:
Roger,

Tying all GE's together and to the earth can be argued does the same thing...While the meter location application does seem to minimize this, the model to which you have drawn is excessive but less likely to be called out at a violation in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I agree that it is not a violation and is the reason I made it a point to just say it is a bad idea IMO. Even though the earth does in fact do the same thing on a larger scale, (tying all the GEC's together) a solid conductor loop is more direct than a single conductor to the GES.

MasterTheNEC said:
Why, because it can be argued the same violation happens when you install a neutral in a metallic nipple or raceway between a meter and a service disconnection means (enclosure) as well and no one ever cites 250.6(A). Well almost no one.
Click to expand...
And this is the reason I prefer to use PVC raceways for service entrance.

BTW, I enjoyed you answers back in the spring.

Roger
 
ActionDave said:
That's a diagram of the whole US power system not a code violation.
Click to expand...
And as I said in the post above, I did not say it was a code violation, I said IMO it was a bad idea. A single point connection to the GES is the better choice.

Roger
 
roger said:
And as I said in the post above, I did not say it was a code violation, I said IMO it was a bad idea. A single point connection to the GES is the better choice.

Roger
Click to expand...
Agreed....Roger was just stating his opinion and indeed does present merit to be argued....a little:lol:
 
With all that being said, I dont see where the wording of 250.64 allows us not to bring the GEC to each service disconnect if there were 2 instead of just 1. It indicates it has to be brought to both does it not?

Jap>
 
jap said:
With all that being said, I dont see where the wording of 250.64 allows us not to bring the GEC to each service disconnect if there were 2 instead of just 1. It indicates it has to be brought to both does it not?

Jap>
Click to expand...

What wording makes you think the GEC bonding to the service neutral can only be made in a service disconnect?

Roger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top