Need advice on grounding/sub panel

[infinity]

Every job I’ve been on you’re at the mercy of any inspector. You can stand and argue you have met code but you won’t do nothing but make it tougher on you down the road if you’re known as that guy. If they ask for it or require it, do it. Maybe other stages are a bit more relaxed but I’ve always been under the gun on the jobs I’ve worked at

Maybe this applies in your jurisdiction but it doesn't apply here. Inspectors don't have the right to make up their own code rules. When they do there is a higher authority on the State level to straighten them out.

 

[Eddie702]

In my area for new work most everyone pulls an egc. Personally, I think it's a good idea especially for electricians that do a sloppy job running EMT.

But that is not what the code says. EMT can always be used as an equipment ground.

 

[retirede]

It’s not a confidence issue. Even if I alone ran the conduit myself, I will not lay the safety of people years down the line because I have too much pride to simply pull on more wire in a conduit. I don’t prefer to work for or around people with enough ego to take insult to simply asking to pull a ground wire in whatever conduit they just ran. It’s not about being confident, it’s about going above and beyond to ensure the safety of someone. I don’t believe I would be able to live with myself if someone got hurt because I had too much pride to accept the fact I was asked to pull a ground wire. Besides, most of the helpers out there don’t tighten connectors and couplings correctly sometimes and I sure won’t lay my namesake on my helper forgetting to snug a connector or me not being able to go back and check 600’ of conduit a day to make sure it’s done right.

At the cost of feeders these days, I’m pretty sure a green wire won’t break the jobs budget

OK, do you pull two green wires in PVC since it’s redundancy you’re after? Can’t be too careful!

 

[Jerrymosier]

OK, do you pull two green wires in PVC since it’s redundancy you’re after? Can’t be too careful!

That’s an arrogant response. you’re just being a wise guy at this point. I’m not talking redundancy. I’m talking about relying forever on a run of conduit that every single connection will remain right for the life of the circuit. Maybe you can be arrogant enough to guarantee that. Or maybe you could be the guy who installs conduit, refuses to pull the ground because your conduit installation is without question and it fails and someone gets hurt.

We’re talking putting your egotistical conduit skills that apparently above the average electrician aside and simply pulling another wire.

I don’t understand the argument some have here against pulling a wire for the EGC. So the raceway can be used provided ALL connections are tight and remain that way. I personally have never known anybody willing to take that chance even on a 20 amp circuit. Figure in the cost of another wire, upsized conduit if need be and just pull the wire.

Maybe being safer than sorry is a better evaluation on how to run a job versus a prideful ego

 

[Jerrymosier]

Maybe this applies in your jurisdiction but it doesn't apply here. Inspectors don't have the right to make up their own code rules. When they do there is a higher authority on the State level to straighten them out.

Key word…my ‘jurisdiction’. Every where I have Dealt with inspections and finals we have inspectors that thoroughly know code plus they go overboard on certain things. I’ve always done work to code even before the state adopts it. That’s the quality of work I have always done. And also in my jurisdiction inspectors who sign off on your work have the ability to hold the entire job up and even cause the customer to fail his CO over his ‘own rules’. Now do any of you want to argue NEC code with an inspector and cause a builder to get behind on the completion of the job because it’s more important to be right instead of just doing what’s asked You go right ahead. Yes inspectors can ask more of you than code in the areas I’ve been in. Sometimes it’s minimal, other times it’s not. Bottom line is I’m always the guy who jumps through hoops to do what’s required on a job, unless it’s something that violates code.

I’ve always worked under strict time guidelines and those guidelines didn’t include allotted time for arguments and stand offs with inspectors unless they wanted work done that directly violated code.

 

[tom baker]

There was a large public works building wired by a large electrical contractor omitted the EGC that was required by specs. Our electric shop supervisor caught the omission. The contractor tried to get by by shoving a short length of green wire at each device box.
The contractor used the neutral to pull in a new neutral and EGC. There was a very large pile of white wire.

 

[Fred B]

That’s an arrogant response. you’re just being a wise guy at this point. I’m not talking redundancy. I’m talking about relying forever on a run of conduit that every single connection will remain right for the life of the circuit. Maybe you can be arrogant enough to guarantee that. Or maybe you could be the guy who installs conduit, refuses to pull the ground because your conduit installation is without question and it fails and someone gets hurt.

We’re talking putting your egotistical conduit skills that apparently above the average electrician aside and simply pulling another wire.

I don’t understand the argument some have here against pulling a wire for the EGC. So the raceway can be used provided ALL connections are tight and remain that way. I personally have never known anybody willing to take that chance even on a 20 amp circuit. Figure in the cost of another wire, upsized conduit if need be and just pull the wire.

Maybe being safer than sorry is a better evaluation on how to run a job versus a prideful ego

Per the NEC the EMT is adequate as EGC. If this is not to your liking or you feel is a safety concern write a proposal for the code panel(s) for it to consider a modification to the code. I can understand your rationale, and it is your perogative to install a wire type EGC but it currently not required under the NEC.

I don't believe his skill level is necessarily above an "average electrician", there is installation criteria that must be met by every electrician and if not met they are not "average" but less than average.

There had already been referenced studies on the capacity of use of EMT as a grounding conductor and was adequate. And the code has very specific installation criteria for use of the metal wireway or conduit as a EGC, some such as restricted use of concentric KO by requiring bonding bushings on the the connections, clean connections (removal of paint or insulated materials), etc.

If connections are failing inadequate consideration of potential expansion, vibration, moisture, etc was made during instalation.

 

[Jerrymosier]

Per the NEC the EMT is adequate as EGC. If this is not to your liking or you feel is a safety concern write a proposal for the code panel(s) for it to consider a modification to the code. I can understand your rationale, and it is your perogative to install a wire type EGC but it currently not required under the NEC.

I don't believe his skill level is necessarily above an "average electrician", there is installation criteria that must be met by every electrician and if not met they are not "average" but less than average.

There had already been referenced studies on the capacity of use of EMT as a grounding conductor and was adequate. And the code has very specific installation criteria for use of the metal wireway or conduit as a EGC, some such as restricted use of concentric KO by requiring bonding bushings on the the connections, clean connections (removal of paint or insulated materials), etc.

If connections are failing inadequate consideration of potential expansion, vibration, moisture, etc was made during instalation.

I understand that. The company I used to work at never practiced that at all. It had nothing to do with anyone not being able to adequately run conduit, it was a safety measure. I can’t guarantee that my helper or anyone under me has fully tightened every connection to the satisfaction of code requirements to use EMT. Even if you did tighten them, there’s always the ones that feel tight but always work loose or never could’ve been tightened in the first place. Besides that you have metal boxes you’re running circuits through that have concentric knockouts on them (1/2-3/4 and 3/4-1), are grounding hubs used on them as well?
i get why people may want to exercise that option to use EMT, however some of these guys have come across arrogant in their response. All I’m saying is I can’t guarantee in anything I do that an outside factor won’t cause my fittings to loosen even a tiny bit and subsequently cause someone to get hurt in a failed and grounding out circuit situation. Besides that, I have 8500 students that I need to keep safe. Many of these older housing units have conduit that is in concrete and I can’t guarantee the efficiency of being an adequate EGC. I see no reason to test each and every conduit versus just pulling a green and bonding the boxes.

In this situation I’ve outlined here, there are over 200 units done this way. I will bet my salary that the contractor that did this upgrade never tested each conduit run back to mdp to verify yea this one will work but no this one won’t. It was a game of assumptions and the cost of an additional wire was omitted based on meeting the minimum code requirements.

Nothing is outlined on upgrades per the code requirements. It is left up to the contractors to do what is allowable but there’s no follow up or inspections and they know that and therein lies the issue of barely getting by at best. I’ve found multiple violations every where I look because no one care about code, they just got the job done and left. If anyone could see the pic, they’d see a grounding bushing was used on the panel and #6 phased green was jumped down to the ground bar. So when looking at that, I’m going to assume nothing this contractor did was to code if they can’t make a jumper that’s not a violation of nec code on phasing the green.

It’s a simple matter of just adding a wire to your estimate and setting yourself to pull it. What’s the cost of a ground when compared to feeders and circuits? How minimal is it to just to take the extra step to avoid future maintenance testing?

April of 2019 in Dixon, CA two boys electrocuted because a bridge was energized due to a faulty ground

in reading older articles posted on this forum, using EMT has been brought up multiple times. Many of you guys commenting here were posting in that thread. There was more mention of distance being a factor and also building steel supporting conduits but it was also mentioned about how the paths can fail which causes a possible issue.

Big john said “but I will concede that when designing a circuit, the electrician can’t depend on that, so it should be wired for worst case scenario”

My exact point. These conduit runs aren’t mapped out and once they disappear in the concrete you have no idea where they go, how they’re run and how effective they are at being an EGC and I’m positive there was never a test done on their ability to be a proper EGC.

if anyone wants to use that method, more power to you. It’s within your right. However it’s also within my right to use a wire to heir on the side of safety. I can’t risk the safety of the staff and students because of my ego over my conduit running abilities

 

[retirede]

To summarize:
This thread started with “Need advice…”.
Advice was given, which didn’t match the OP’s preconceived expectations.
We are now approaching 50 posts with the OP trying to convince everyone else that the advice given is wrong.

 

[infinity]

And also in my jurisdiction inspectors who sign off on your work have the ability to hold the entire job up and even cause the customer to fail his CO over his ‘own rules’. Now do any of you want to argue NEC code with an inspector and cause a builder to get behind on the completion of the job because it’s more important to be right instead of just doing what’s asked You go right ahead

It's too bad that you have to work where inspectors can make up their own rules. Here in NJ we have a statewide electrical code. We also have some bad inspectors so not challenging them just makes the situation worse for everyone who follows the code to the letter. Smart electricians know the code too and they shouldn't take the inspectors word for it when they're wrong.

 

[Fred B]

.....
Nothing is outlined on upgrades per the code requirements. It is left up to the contractors to do what is allowable but there’s no follow up or inspections and they know that and therein lies the issue of barely getting by at best. I’ve found multiple violations every where I look because no one care about code, they just got the job done and left. If anyone could see the pic, they’d see a grounding bushing was used on the panel and #6 phased green was jumped down to the ground bar. So when looking at that, I’m going to assume nothing this contractor did was to code if they can’t make a jumper that’s not a violation of nec code on phasing the green.
.......

I get that, with no oversight that has authority and reprecusions, there is no incentive short of personal integrity to have it done right or safely. The fact that the fox is guarding the hen house, State Ed dept overseeing their own, is problematic at best. We have the same here and there is a lot of violations not just electrical within any individual building that is strictly only under the auspices of the State Agency. It has been asked of me several times "how can they get away with this?", got no good answer.
As to how you get your safety concerns addressed, good luck in that environment. Experience is that until an incident occurs that results in injury or death a self oversight agency has no incentive to change behavior or methods. You can continue to do the best you can within the "system" or move on to something else. Unless you get someone with the same mindset to safety at the top of the agency as yourself, going up the ladder will just give you a headache from pounding your head against the wall.
This is the concept why an Ei can't inspect their own work.

 

[winnie]

It is always one's right to do more than the code requires. It is also the customer's right to demand (and pay for) more than the code requires.

In my own home, in the areas where I used EMT, I ran a wire EGC. So I won't try to argue that having the wire EGC isn't 'better'.

Data from the steel tube institute (has been linked in other threads) indicates that an intact EMT is a lower impedance (better) EGC than the required wire EGC. So the only thing that a wire EGC adds is redundancy. Does that redundancy personally make me feel good? Yes, it does. So I pay a bit extra to have it.

Remember that code is about 'practical safeguarding', not perfect protection.

-Jon

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The last continuing Ed class I was in spoke on grounding mostly. Using conduit was brought up in that class. Of course it wasn’t discussed as far as where you can do it or not, but he said he highly discouraged counting on the raceway. He gave 2 examples where people were electrocuted recently because it was assumed the conduit would work and something messed up and they lost their life. Now I don’t know about where y’all are, but every electrician I’ve ever worked around always pulls a ground wire. The jobs we did in Carolina required a ground conductor and they had to be made up in the box before passing the wall cover inspection.

This has been a topic the last 2 days with several of the electricians I know and all have said they wouldn’t want to count on that conduit and the connectors holding up over time and still acting as a proper EGC.

Knowing that EMT can be counted as the EGC still does not change the fact I’ll always pull a wire. If a customer doesn’t wanna pay for one wire then I won’t do the job. It just makes more sense to be safe to me

And there are any number of cases where the green wire was not correctly installed and people died, including a number at pools.
In both cases, it is workmanship of the installer and not the choice of what to use as the required equipment grounding conductor.

 

[Jerrymosier]

To summarize:
This thread started with “Need advice…”.
Advice was given, which didn’t match the OP’s preconceived expectations.
We are now approaching 50 posts with the OP trying to convince everyone else that the advice given is wrong.

Every post you have had here on my thread has been at the edge of being a smart A trying to start an argument. Move on. I know electricians like you, grumble gripe and moan looking for a chance to pick a fight. Dime a dozen man

 

[Jerrymosier]

It is always one's right to do more than the code requires. It is also the customer's right to demand (and pay for) more than the code requires.

In my own home, in the areas where I used EMT, I ran a wire EGC. So I won't try to argue that having the wire EGC isn't 'better'.

Data from the steel tube institute (has been linked in other threads) indicates that an intact EMT is a lower impedance (better) EGC than the required wire EGC. So the only thing that a wire EGC adds is redundancy. Does that redundancy personally make me feel good? Yes, it does. So I pay a bit extra to have it.

Remember that code is about 'practical safeguarding', not perfect protection.

-Jon

That's what I'm trying to say. Even after the clarification of code and EMT I still heir on that side of caution, even for redundancy. I'd much rather go that small extra mile personally

 

[infinity]

That's what I'm trying to say. Even after the clarification of code and EMT I still heir on that side of caution, even for redundancy. I'd much rather go that small extra mile personally

Everyone agrees that exceeding the NEC is just fine. If you're running a 20 amp circuit in EMT pulling an extra EGC isn't going to break the bank. Wire a 60 story building and pull in EGC's that the customer is not paying for could cost you a few million dollars. So just keep in mind that from the perspective of somone who's wiring a high rise building wire type EGC's aren't getting pulled for free.

 

[Strathead]

Ok thank you. I wanted to be 100% sure before I take this further. That’s all I was asking because we always knew the rule of 20A or less. We used to never NOT pull a separate EGC. It was too much to put our reputation on the line that all connections were tight versus the tiny cost of just adding an extra wire in a conduit. In fact, I have never understood why people wish to save a couple dollars in cases like this instead of just adding one more wire. Code compliant or not, just doesn’t make sense

But you implied that you quoted that "20A rule" from you copy of the NEC. So, where did this "rule" come from?

 

[kwired]

Every post you have had here on my thread has been at the edge of being a smart A trying to start an argument. Move on. I know electricians like you, grumble gripe and moan looking for a chance to pick a fight. Dime a dozen man

I'd say you sort of trying to pick the other side of said fight though.

You are entitled to your opinion. Wire type EGC connections can and do fail also. One could argue that maybe GFP of some variety is the way to go - but those have electronics that can and do fail also.

NEC is the minimum standards, you are certainly welcome to exceed those standards. A designer is welcome to specify something that exceeds those standards.

You are also welcome to submit PI to change the code, good luck getting it into code though, this has been the way it is for a pretty long time.

If you have deep enough pockets to push something you maybe will get your way though, that is part of why AFCI requirements even exist and have expanded to where they are over time. One simple PI however is not going very far on it's own here.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Every post you have had here on my thread has been at the edge of being a smart A trying to start an argument. Move on. I know electricians like you, grumble gripe and moan looking for a chance to pick a fight. Dime a dozen man

Exactly how I see your comments on this thread.

 

[Jerrymosier]

I'd say you sort of trying to pick the other side of said fight though.

You are entitled to your opinion. Wire type EGC connections can and do fail also. One could argue that maybe GFP of some variety is the way to go - but those have electronics that can and do fail also.

NEC is the minimum standards, you are certainly welcome to exceed those standards. A designer is welcome to specify something that exceeds those standards.

You are also welcome to submit PI to change the code, good luck getting it into code though, this has been the way it is for a pretty long time.

If you have deep enough pockets to push something you maybe will get your way though, that is part of why AFCI requirements even exist and have expanded to where they are over time. One simple PI however is not going very far on it's own here.

I have no interest in changing the code for the state or NEC. I’ve always operated by the rule of a wired EGC and since it was an every day expectation, I had assumed that was code by definition. The article was a little confusing and of course interpretation was vague in some areas to back up what I’ve always done, that’s why I asked here. Sometimes you have to look in other areas of NEC to reference passages. Of course I wasn’t looking for it to change my mind, just thought this was a violation and was seeking a means to present this properly to administration since it was always our practice to do that. I haven't argued the fact that anyone was wrong. I have stated that I would rather act in the worst case scenario as said above.

And I don’t come to forums to argue, just have mature intellectual conversations with people. However this guy has been snide without provocation and I’m not here for that and don’t have the time for his comments. If anyone feels the need to ask a question then they've earned the right to do so without the interjection of someone who has a rude comment. This was something I felt I was discussing with you guys, if this guy and If I can't do so without someone poking the bear than my interest in seeking help here in the future is done