Grounding 5 main panels

Status
Not open for further replies.
The thread isn't about standard practice but more about what's right and wrong. Most of you seem to agree that taps are the way to go and that something that im doing with this installation is against NEC. I've been terminating my GEC this way for years and pretty much all the residential panels that i've seen here in Illinois are terminated this way. I thought and still think that something is wrong with this installation but just can't point to it.... hmmm.... while i understand that many think this installation is not compliance (based on speculation), i have yet to hear a number to prove that my installation is wrong. Some of the things makes sense here such as losing a GEC if you were to remove a panel BUT we can't seem to find it in the book.
 
MannyBurgos said:
Ok. This is a first to me. Wow. And what would be the cite?
Click to expand...
Already posted...
augie47 said:
250.24(A)(1) General.
The grounding electrode conductor connection shall be made at any accessible point from the load end of the overhead service conductors, service drop, underground service conductors, or service lateral to and including the terminal or bus to which the grounded service conductor is connected at the service disconnecting means
Click to expand...
Highlighting mine.
 
We have a couple of different issues going here... my opinion is that the wording of 250.64(C)(2) is actually referencing bussbars as shown in post #22 and #23 and using that section to "loop" your grounds is not compliant, but emphasizing that's my opinion and as long as it's accepted in your area, so be it.
As far as terminating on other than the neutral buss, I think that is pretty cut & dry from the wording in 250.24(A)(1), but again, if other means are accepted in your area,,that's how it is.
I understand that you want the installs to be Code compliant but as long as there are grey areas you have to settle for "acceptable to the AHJ".
I think for a majority of us here, the taps are a more viable option so your "method" has not been challenged.
 
augie47 said:
We have a couple of different issues going here]opinion[/B] is that the wording of 250.64(C)(2) is actually referencing bussbars as shown in post #22 and #23 and using that section to "loop" your grounds is not compliant, but emphasizing that's my opinion and as long as it's accepted in your area, so be it.
As far as terminating on other than the neutral buss, I think that is pretty cut & dry from the wording in 250.24(A)(1), but again, if other means are accepted in your area,,that's how it is.
I understand that you want the installs to be Code compliant but as long as there are grey areas you have to settle for "acceptable to the AHJ".
I think for a majority of us here, the taps are a more viable option so your "method" has not been challenged.
Click to expand...

Thanks for joining us again Augie. There are indeed several issues here between mixed sections and opinions. We are throwing bonding and GEC as well as EGC all over this thread when the topic refers to "looping" of the GEC. You as an inspector, do you see a code violation in the setup i propose. Running an UNSPLICED EGC through a neutral terminal lug listed to accept the wire gauge and running it unspliced through all the panels in the same setup?
 
MannyBurgos said:
Ok. I want to make sure were on the same page here. You said that it is unacceptable to bond your GEC at the ground bar if the bonding screw is used. Correct? Ok. What does the bond screw have to do with 240.24(a)(1)?
Click to expand...
Actually the means to bond the neutral to the EG terminal bar doesn't matter.The GEC is required to be connected to the grounded conductor, its terminal or bus.

Earlier I said you could land there if a wire-type main bonding jumper of appropriate size is used. That's because if appropriately sized, the EG terminal bus is technically a neutral bus, and vice versa, or essentially each serves as both... where distinguishing between them by some is just an exercise in semantics.
 
MannyBurgos said:
There is a neutral lug with an additional lug for the supplemental GEC which would be the ground rod...
Click to expand...
Not necessarily... but could be for ground rod. You can just as easily land your GEC there and not have to concern yourself with any other place. Of course you then have the problem of landing your ground rod GEC... but I'm sure you can work that out on your own. :D
 
Smart $ said:
Not necessarily... but could be for ground rod. You can just as easily land your GEC there and not have to concern yourself with any other place. Of course you then have the problem of landing your ground rod GEC... but I'm sure you can work that out on your own. :D
Click to expand...

:D But of course.... I thought about that years ago, except: by local amendments, we are required to terminate our GEC at the main disconnect which would be at the panels.
 
This has been an interesting discussion and I truly appreciate everyone's input. I have to say that I've learned from this. My new GEC installation method from the next project on out will be the tapping method. I will not continue to insist in code violation citation as it does make sense and seems to be an industry standard practice to tap the GEC. With that said, CAN I CONNECT MY EGC VIA BUSBARS AS PERMITTED IN 250.64? jk :p

Thanks for your help all.
 
MannyBurgos said:
Hahaha. I really did need a laugh today. My current tracer is missing (stolen) and had a tech out today tracing dead receptacles and still didn't find the problem. Damn cloth wire!

Anyways, here is the link so that you can check yourself. I am not bs'ing no one. No point in doing that.

https://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10985
Click to expand...
Verified! Wasn't doubting you, but after clicking your link, I looked just to see if i could find it: Sec. 10-218(e)(11).

BTW, I also noticed under Sec. 10-217 that Zion has adopted the 2011 NEC. :blink:
 
Smart $ said:
Verified! Wasn't doubting you, but after clicking your link, I looked just to see if i could find it: Sec. 10-218(e)(11).

BTW, I also noticed under Sec. 10-217 that Zion has adopted the 2011 NEC. :blink:
Click to expand...


Yes they just adopted 2011 this past month and the inspector still allows us to do installations per 2002 for a few more months until everyone warms up to the 2011. The amendments remain the same for as long as i can remember so that is why we were looping the GEC from way back then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top