Grounding Electrode System Question

[LarryFine]

That is a local rule, not the NEC. In many areas it is in the meter can.

I wish we could do that. It's the perfect place, especially for exterior electrodes (rods).

 

[hornetd]

The only disagreement I have is with your use of the phrase "at the meter". The gec may connect anywhere from the service point up to and including the first disconnecting means. Sometimes the meter is a convenient place to make a g e c connection, sometimes it is not. Some POCOs do not allow a g e c connection there.

It is true that the service standards of some electrical utilities, as approved by their State's Utility Regulatory Authority, do not permit a connection to the Grounding Electrode Conductor in the meter enclosure. What many may not have experienced is that some electric utilities require the Grounding Electrode Conductor for the driven rods, which those utilities also require even when the US National Electric Code would not, must terminate in the meter enclosure. The electric utilities that you are most likely to find that requirement is some Electric Coops that are the legacy of the Rural Electrification Administration (REA). The original service standard of those Coops required that the Driven Rod Grounding Electrode Conductor terminate at the neutral drip loops on the Grounded Current Carrying Conductor on the premise side of the splices between the Service Drop Conductors and the Service Entry Cable or Raceway. Coops began requiring the connection in the meter enclosure later as underground services came into use while still requiring the Termination to be made at the Neutral's drip loop on overhead services. Some of those went on to require that the connection be made in the meter enclosure on all services to simplify their service standards.

You can see what the REA's engineers thought it would provide better lightning protection by reading historic copies of the Electrical Coop service standards. The REA had those provisions in it's model service standards for electrical coops to reduce damage and the kindling of fires by lightning. I have yet to see any study that has been done comparing the outdoor connection of the driven rod GECs to the indoor connection of driven rod GECs for the number of lightning strike, number and/or severity of strikes which caused damage, or the number of each type that have suffered a fire ignition by lightning strike. So I don't think anyone can say with certainty that the outdoor driven rod GEC terminations perform the lightning protection function better than indoor terminations do.

--
Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

Where does it say that the "if the water line qualifies as a GE, then it MUST be used?"

I have to ask though, there seems to be a common element which is... "if the waterline DOES / DOES NOT qualify as a GE. Are you referring to the NEC listed qualifiers? And again, where does it say that if it qualifies it MUST be used??

250.50 Grounding Electrode System.
All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are present at each building or structure served shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system.

Since "Shall" is a prescriptive term when used in law and regulation and it is used in the language of 25.50 it seems fairly clear to me.

--
Tom Horne

 

[infinity]

Since "Shall" is a prescriptive term when used in law and regulation and it is used in the language of 25.50 it seems fairly clear to me.

Straight from the NEC:

90.5 Mandatory Rules, Permissive Rules, and Explanatory Material.
(A) Mandatory Rules. Mandatory rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are specifically required or prohibited and are characterized by the use of the terms shall or shall not.
(B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required

 

[hornetd]

I'm not picking on you but I will use your post as more evidence why I am solidly against this trend in the electrical industry and the NEC to use the word bonding instead of grounding and equipment grounding.

Dave

I do realize that no one likes change for changes sake. We should have a pretty good reason for changing a long used term especially if it changes the meaning of the new language. Bonding is different from grounding but if you look at the reason for grounding electrical wiring I suspect that you might agree that the "Equipment Grounding Conductors" do not have a roll in Grounding per se. The fact that they are connected to the Grounded Current Carrying Conductor (GCCC) and the Grounding Electrode Conductor at the Service Disconnecting Means (SDM) is what led us to call it a Grounding Conductor in the first place. If you look at it objectively I think that you will see that the EGC's main purpose is to connect the non current carrying but conductive parts of the electrical system to the GCCC of the Service Entry Conductors so as to provide a low impedance path back to the source of the current in the secondary of the Utility's supply transformer. If there were no GEC connected to the the electrical system at all the EGCs could still perform that job. That is why some of us are asking why the industry and the section 250 Code Making Panel continue to call it a grounding conductor when that is not the function that it is installed to perform. It's essential role is to rapidly conduct any current flowing on the non current carrying conductive portions of the electrical system back to the current source so that that flow will briefly exceed the designed opening current of the Over Current Protective Device (OCPD). The more quickly the escaped current is returned to it's source the faster the OCPD will open and the less damage there will be to the electrical system and the less likely a "fire of electrical origin" will be. Without the EGC to send that leaking current back home to it's transformer the opening of the OCPD will not only be slower it is not likely to occur at all. What the conductor which we presently call the Equipment Grounding Conductor does is it connects all of the non current carrying conductive parts of the electrical system to the GCCC (Neutral) of the service conductors. Let me repeat that if I somehow manage to leave out the installation of a Grounding Electrode System so that there is no connection between the electrical system and ground a properly installed EGC will still provide an effective low impedance fault current path back to the source. What it is doing is not Grounding. That conductor bonds all of that conductive electrical system parts to each other and to the Neutral of the Service Conductors. That is why some of us want to see that name changed to reflect what the conductor is installed to do. We think that what is presently called the EGC would be more accurately called an Equipment BONDING Conductor. Further we believe that a more functional naming of that conductor will lessen the amount of confusion that presently exists both within the industry and amongst the public would not occur as readily.

--
Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

If I were an inspector I would have every right to have someone prove it does or doesn't.

Roger

No Sir. You would not! Such actions on the part of regulatory officials are what the Courts call "Arbitrary and Capricious." The Electrical Code still requires that work be done in a "Neat and Workmanlike Manor." The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has ruled that any attempt to enforce that language would be inherently "Arbitrary and Capricious." In the absence of very clear standards on what constitutes a "Neat and Workmanlike Manor" SCOTUS found that it would be impossible for anyone to know in advance what would comply with that requirement and that as such it's inherently arbitrary and capricious in it's affect.

Moving on to what you said in your posting your "requiring that someone prove that it is..." is not something that can be predicted prior to inspection. In the absence of clear code language which said that upon inspection the installer will prove to the satisfaction of the inspector... by... Your order would not be tolerated by the courts or even by a Board of Permit Appeals which has been provided with qualified legal advice. That outcome is easily predicted by the language of the consenting opinions in the SCOTUS "Neat and Workmanlike Manor" decision.

Something you may want to keep in mind on future inspection issues is that no legal enforcement authority in these United States of America can require a citizen to prove that anything "Is Not" in any sense. It is a logical absurdity to attempt to prove a negative. I cannot prove to anyone that I am not a murderer or even a serial murderer. I do realize that I have used non customary language by saying murderer but that is an important distinction because many of us who have served in the armed forces are undeniably serial killers but the killing we did are not crimes here in the United States. There are so many things that I cannot prove I have not done that requiring an accused person to prove that they did not do something is inherently despotic. By the same token requiring me to prove that some part of my work is not any particular thing which the inspector demands I prove is close to an effective definition of what "Arbitrary and Capricious" means.

--
Tom Horne

 

[ActionDave]

Dave

I do realize that no one likes change for changes sake. We should have a pretty good reason for changing a long used term especially if it changes the meaning of the new language.

Bonding is different from grounding but if you look at the reason for grounding electrical wiring I suspect that you might agree that the "Equipment Grounding Conductors" do not have a roll in Grounding per se. The fact that they are connected to the Grounded Current Carrying Conductor (GCCC) and the Grounding Electrode Conductor at the Service Disconnecting Means (SDM) is what led us to call it a Grounding Conductor in the first place. If you look at it objectively I think that you will see that the EGC's main purpose is to connect the non current carrying but conductive parts of the electrical system to the GCCC of the Service Entry Conductors so as to provide a low impedance path back to the source of the current in the secondary of the Utility's supply transformer. If there were no GEC connected to the the electrical system at all the EGCs could still perform that job.

That is why some of us are asking why the industry and the section 250 Code Making Panel continue to call it a grounding conductor when that is not the function that it is installed to perform. It's essential role is to rapidly conduct any current flowing on the non current carrying conductive portions of the electrical system back to the current source so that that flow will briefly exceed the designed opening current of the Over Current Protective Device (OCPD). The more quickly the escaped current is returned to it's source the faster the OCPD will open and the less damage there will be to the electrical system and the less likely a "fire of electrical origin" will be. Without the EGC to send that leaking current back home to it's transformer the opening of the OCPD will not only be slower it is not likely to occur at all.

What the conductor which we presently call the Equipment Grounding Conductor does is it connects all of the non current carrying conductive parts of the electrical system to the GCCC (Neutral) of the service conductors. Let me repeat that if I somehow manage to leave out the installation of a Grounding Electrode System so that there is no connection between the electrical system and ground a properly installed EGC will still provide an effective low impedance fault current path back to the source. What it is doing is not Grounding. That conductor bonds all of that conductive electrical system parts to each other and to the Neutral of the Service Conductors.

That is why some of us want to see that name changed to reflect what the conductor is installed to do. We think that what is presently called the EGC would be more accurately called an Equipment BONDING Conductor. Further we believe that a more functional naming of that conductor will lessen the amount of confusion that presently exists both within the industry and amongst the public would not occur as readily.

--
Tom Horne

Dude, if you hit the enter button a couple of times it would make your post easier to follow. I have a clear understanding of equipment grounding conductors, grounding electrode conductors, grounded conductors, et al.

You can call an EGC whatever you want, how about Protective Earth like they do in Europe? Thirty years from now we are going to have the same issues no matter what these components of the electrical system are called because it is not the nouns that are the problem it's a lack of understanding of electrical systems. Switching the language to equipment bonding conductors confuses things because not all bonding conductors are meant for fault clearing.

 

[hornetd]

Late comer.
Backing up to where the grounding electrode conductor to rods can be connected, In the areas I have worked, I would venture to say that all were connected at the service drop POA during the original installation of power prior to the late 60s. It did not matter where the meter was located.

Almost all of the Electrical Cooperatives in the United States used the model service standard which was provided by the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) The REA model standard required that the connection of the Grounding Electrode Conductor from the driven rod electrodes terminate at the drip loop of the Neutral Conductor on the customer side of the splices between the Coop's supply conductors and the Neutral of the premises wiring system. In many places the Electrical Cooperative did the electrical inspections because for many years there was no one else who had the knowledge to do so. The engineers of the REA believed that requiring that the GEC from the driven rod electrodes be made at the neutral drip loop would provide better protection of the electrical installation from lightning. So whenever you see a Grounding Electrode Conductor run up the wall of a building and terminated to the Neutral drip loop of the service entry conductors just check which utility serves the premise. You are very likely to find that it is an Electrical Cooperative.

--
Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

In MA the GEC always lands in the service disconnect enclosure. I have seen deviations from this in NH though.

That is not true in all parts of Massachusetts. In those areas served by Electric Cooperatives the GEC is terminated on the Neutral drip loop of the Service Entry Conductors. I coop service areas were underground services have come into common use some of the Coops have changed their service standard requirement to the GEC termination being inside the Meter enclosure. Some Coops still require the drip loop connection on overhead services and in the Meter enclosure only for the underground services. I was born and raised through my early teens in Massachusetts and one of the homes we lived in had an Electrical Cooperative as our electric utility. I suppose those service standards could all have been changed by now; I am after all 70 years old; but I'd bet a weeks pension that there is still at least on Electrical Cooperative in Massachusetts that makes customers do it to the old model service standard of the long abolished Rural Electrification Administration (REA).

--
Tom Horne

 

[roger]

No Sir. You would not!

Sorry to ruin your long winded reply but yes I would and I would walk away while you screamed and stomped your feet.

Roger

 

[hornetd]

Here is an illustration to go along with Stratheads post.

View attachment 2556390

Roger

Roger

Have you seen the connection made to the Neutral of the Service Drop as shown in that diagram? It's been a long time since I worked in an area served by Electrical Cooperative Utility but I do remember that we always had to make that connection to the Service Entry Neutral Conductor drip loop. They never permitted the connection anywhere on their drop conductors. But since I certainly haven't worked in every Coop's service area there could be some that do allow or even require it to be made to the drop neutral.


--
Tom Horne

 

[roger]

Roger

Have you seen the connection made to the Neutral of the Service Drop as shown in that diagram? It's been a long time since I worked in an area served by Electrical Cooperative Utility but I do remember that we always had to make that connection to the Service Entry Neutral Conductor drip loop. They never permitted the connection anywhere on their drop conductors. But since I certainly haven't worked in every Coop's service area there could be some that do allow or even require it to be made to the drop neutral.
View attachment 2556511

--
Tom Horne

Yes I have but it was on a college campus controlled by their own rules.

Roger

 

[hornetd]

Because the NEC has no jurisdiction over POCO equipment.

Are you saying that the Meter Socket Enclosure is POCO equipment? In most places I have worked the legal demarcation point for the end of the POCO's plant was at the splices between the Utility's Service Drop or Lateral and the premises Service Entry Conductors. In some underground installations there are no underground service entry conductors and the demarcation point is the supply terminals of the meter socket. But until you said that "the NEC has no jurisdiction over POCO equipment" while apparently referring to the meter enclosure I had never considered if Virginia might have a different demarcation point in it's Electrical Utility Regulations. All those times I worked in Northern Virginia thinking about the demarcation point as being at the drip loop splices I may have been completely wrong. Since Virginia is a minimum Maximum State what applies in Richmond would apply State wide. I had always believed that only the Meter itself, rather than the Meter Socket Enclosure as well was actually utility property.

--
Tom Horne

 

[hornetd]

Dude, if you hit the enter button a couple of times it would make your post easier to follow. I have a clear understanding of equipment grounding conductors, grounding electrode conductors, grounded conductors, et al.

You can call an EGC whatever you want, how about Protective Earth like they do in Europe? Thirty years from now we are going to have the same issues no matter what these components of the electrical system are called because it is not the nouns that are the problem it's a lack of understanding of electrical systems. Switching the language to equipment bonding conductors confuses things because not all bonding conductors are meant for fault clearing.

All I was trying to say; however badly or unclearly; is that what we call the Equipment Grounding Conductor is a bonding conductor with the purpose of bonding the non current carrying conductive parts of the electrical system to the Neutral Conductor of the Service.

--
Tom Horne

 

[ptonsparky]

All I was trying to say; however badly or unclearly; is that what we call the Equipment Grounding Conductor is a bonding conductor with the purpose of bonding the non current carrying conductive parts of the electrical system to the Neutral Conductor of the Service.

--
Tom Horne

...The Grounded Conductor...

 

[electrofelon]

All I was trying to say; however badly or unclearly; is that what we call the Equipment Grounding Conductor is a bonding conductor with the purpose of bonding the non current carrying conductive parts of the electrical system to the Neutral Conductor of the Service.

--
Tom Horne

But that is not correct. A common EGC is providing a low impedance path back to the source, AND it is connecting the equipment to earth (250.4(A)(2). The former may be the more important function I admit, but that is the difficulty in naming this two-purpose conductor.

 

[hornetd]

Sorry to ruin your long winded reply but yes I would and I would walk away while you screamed and stomped your feet.

Roger

I never even raised my voice to an inspector or to a coworker that I recall. I did have a couple of sit downs with chief electrical inspectors and those went in my favor. I went to a board of permit appeals only once and I got the inspector decision reversed on that as well. Usually all it took was a telephone call to a supervising or chief inspector to get them to look into it. There were several cases were I was told that I misunderstood the order but that was fine with me. Why would I fight when they were telling me that I didn't have to do something that I thought I shouldn't have been asked to do in the first place. Now I'm certainly not saying I never made mistakes because the only one who never made any was Jesus and they crucified him for it. When I did get corrected for something I'd done wrong I always thanked the inspector for the help. Having them find my fowl up during inspection was a lot better than the recall or bad customer experience that might have happened.

--
Tom Horne

 

[ActionDave]

All I was trying to say; however badly or unclearly; is that what we call the Equipment Grounding Conductor is a bonding conductor with the purpose of bonding the non current carrying conductive parts of the electrical system to the Neutral Conductor of the Service.

--
Tom Horne

And all I am saying is changing the name from EGC to EBC is not going to improve anyone's understanding and could make things worse.

How is it not confusing to an electrical apprentice to tell him that there should only be one bond at the service panel from the neutral to the metal case and in the next breath tell him to make sure all the metal parts are bonded?

Isn't it more clear to say that there is one place where the neutral is bonded and everything else needs an equipment grounding conductor to make sure a fault is cleared as soon as possible?

 

[LarryFine]

Are you saying that the Meter Socket Enclosure is POCO equipment?

Yes. Here in VA, Dominion Power provides free meter bases and eye-bolts, we install them, and they provide and install the line-side cable. We do load-side clamps, they do load-side crimps. If there's a conduit mast and conductors, then we provide and install them.

 

[kwired]

All I was trying to say; however badly or unclearly; is that what we call the Equipment Grounding Conductor is a bonding conductor with the purpose of bonding the non current carrying conductive parts of the electrical system to the Neutral Conductor of the Service.

--
Tom Horne

Equipment grounding conductor only exists beyond the main bonding jumper in the service disconnect. Ahead of that point everything is bonded via the grounded service conductor.