Light pole grounding question revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.
JJWalecka

JJWalecka

Senior Member
Location
New England
In a recent post Light Pole grounding on 8/15/06 it was stated.

"the concrete base is probably a better grounding electrode then the ground rod (but not a NEC legal one)."

Unfortunately, I can not find the discrepancy that does not allow the pole base.

I have used both ground rods and the concrete encased rebar.

Comments are appreciated. I am still searching. Thank you.

Justin J. Walecka
 
Check out 250.52(A)(3).

Unless done intentionally no standard pole base that I can recall meets the NEC description of a concrete encased electrode.
 
Iwire,

Lets say the pole base has four, five foot, straight pieces of 1/2 in rebar placed vertical in a sonar tube. Three to four two foot diameters rebar are bent in a circle and attached to the vertical pieces.

The total footage of the ? inch rebar would be 26 or 28 feet.

In your opinion would that meet the requirements of 250.52 (A) (3)?

Justin J. Walecka
 
cpal said:
JJ
Are you also providing a disconnect at the pole???


Charlie
Click to expand...

You got my interest up. :)

As I am sure you know a light pole is 'exempted' out of a required disconnect at the pole. (225.32 Exception 3)

However it is not exempted from 250.32(A) if it is served by more than one branch circuit or feeder.
 
Just curios I have listened to contractors complain that theymust install a disconnect at poles in some of "our jurisdictions" I like to keep tabs

Charlie
 
Charlie,

"Are you also providing a disconnect at the pole???"

No disconnect. Only over current protection is the breaker. Thank you.

Justin J. Walecka
 
Morning Justin.

JJWalecka said:
Lets say the pole base has four, five foot, straight pieces of 1/2 in rebar placed vertical in a sonar tube. Three to four two foot diameters rebar are bent in a circle and attached to the vertical pieces.

The total footage of the ? inch rebar would be 26 or 28 feet.

In your opinion would that meet the requirements of 250.52 (A) (3)?
Click to expand...

Not unusual situation at all and in that case yes IMO you now have the required twenty feet of 1/2" rebar.

However what about this part of 250.52(A)(3)?

.....located within and near the bottom of a.....
Click to expand...

Many times a lot of the rebar you describe will be above grade and it definitely will not be 'near' the bottom.

All that aside as much as I do not feel it meets the NEC definition of a CEE I still feel it is better than a rod.

Now what exactly will any electrode do for us at a light pole? :p
 
It doesn't necessarily have to be a defined CEE.

See 250.52(A)(2)(1), and (A)(2)(4). ;)

That said, GE's at a pole are generally voluntary, so....
 
Charlie,

"JJ how many circuits supply each pole??"

This was a hypothetical situation. Generally one circuit supplies each pole, weather its 480v or 208v. A circuit might feed through the pole base to feed another pole light.

Iwire,

Mr. Holt provided in an article in EC&M that stated that the grounding conductor actually was more important than the grounding of the pole base (I believe, can?t find article to support my theory).

Justin Walecka
 
JJWalecka said:
Iwire,

Mr. Holt provided in an article in EC&M that stated that the grounding conductor actually was more important than the grounding of the pole base (I believe, can?t find article to support my theory).

Justin Walecka
Click to expand...

Your right.....he is right. :)

The pole supplied by a single branch circuit is not required to have any electrode at the pole.

The EGC is the most important conductor in the circuit.
 
Mr. Stolz,

Good day, Sir.


"That said, GE's at a pole are generally voluntary, so...."

I it was required by the AHJ for the parking lot lights at a large chain Pharmacy in Rhode Island . We used the pole base as the ground. Since then I have always seen a ground rod. "Driven" maybe...

Justin J. Walecka
 
JJWalecka said:
I it was required by the AHJ for the parking lot lights at a large chain Pharmacy in Rhode Island .
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on the details of this requirement?

And quit the "Mr." and "sir" stuff, Justin. :D
 
georgestolz said:
Can you elaborate on the details of this requirement?
Click to expand...

'Rhode Island'

That is all that needs to be said.

It appears that Justin is a fellow MA resident working in RI.

Lets leave it at that.

And quit the "Mr." and "sir" stuff, Justin. :D
Click to expand...

I agree I'm not that old am I?
 
well JJ

That is prety much what I was trying to determine, IMO, poles in general do not require a GE ( I don't see many if any) the NEC has attempted to deal with this for several cycles (225.32-250.32 and so on.) but has always left wiggle room for those circumstances where "standards or poles" in fact will need a GE and in some cases a service listed disconnect also. But as usual every installation requires evaluation on it's own merits.

Charlie
 
Friend or Foe

Friend or Foe

"And quit the "Mr." and "sir" stuff, Justin."


LOL. I hear this kind of stuff all the time. "Wow you are a polite son @$#@" It is a force of habit. I was raised to respect people.
George and Bob sorry to offend you.
This world is crazy. People very rarely say hello or care about anyone but themselves. Stab you in the back while smiling in your face. I refuse to give in. I respect people who are respectful to me. Believe me you don't want to be on my bad side. Once the line is crossed there is no turning back.


Justin J. Walecka
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top