Picture of ground rod that failed inspection

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sfav8r

Senior Member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
I thought this installation was in compliance because the conduit is bonded to the conductor on both ends. I realize that NORMALLY the conduit would extend all the way to the rod, but it was just easier in this case not to do that. The conduit was only used to protect the 1/0 where it came up through the floor about 18" into the panel (even though the code doesn't require the protection). Since it is bonded on both ends, I don't see why it failed the inspection. The inspector (I was not present) said that the conduit "must continue to and be bonded directly to the ground rod." I don't know what code section he may be referring to. I would like to reread the section if someone has a reference.

Thanks
 

Attachments

  • ground rod.jpg
    ground rod.jpg
    145.2 KB · Views: 0
Back in the day there were (and still mfg) fittings to attach a ferrous raceway to a clamp on a water pipe or ground rod. But today there is no NEC requirement to extend the raceway to the ground rod. Unless the AHJ feels the GEC is subject to physical damage that is.
 
GoldDigger said:
Did the inspector not realize that there was a continuous wire running inside the pipe?

Tapatalk...
Click to expand...

In side the pipe?? Please explain what you are refering to.

I can't really see it that clearly but what is that shown in the picture just before the EGC enters the pipe?
Does it comply with 250.64(C)? If so then my previous comment is irrelevent.
250.64 Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation.
Grounding electrode conductors shall be installed as specified
in 250.64(A) through (F)
(C) Continuous. Grounding electrode conductor(s) shalljoint except as permitted in (1) through (3):
(1) Splicing shall be permitted only by irreversible
compression-type connectors listed as grounding and
bonding equipment or by the exothermic welding process.
(2) Sections of busbars shall be permitted to be connected
together to form a grounding electrode conductor.
(3) Bonding jumper(s) from grounding electrode(s) and
grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be permitted to
be connected to a copper busbar not less than 6 mm ?
50 mm (1?4 in. ? 2 in.) and of sufficient length for all
connections. The busbar shall be securely fastened and
shall be installed in an accessible location. Connections
shall be made by irreversible compresssion-type connectors
listed as grounding and bonding equipment or
by the exothermic welding process.
 
GoldDigger said:
Pipe as in conduit..... :)

Tapatalk...
Click to expand...

It's conduit to me. Some may refer to is as pipe. Then there is ridgid conduit which is more like pipe more than EMT is. But, where is this conversation going? Is there an EGC inside the EMT and what is that fitting at the end of the EMT? I've to clarify what is being shown as everyone it appears is shooting at shadows as to my he got gigged by the inspector.
 
Looks like the inspector only read the first sentence of 250.64(E) and not the part about attachment of the raceway directly to the GEC with the fitting shown.
 
Show the illustration below to the inspector.

1100205275_2.jpg


Roger
 
templdl said:
It may be hard to see or not installed but in the picture as included in the OP there appears to be a bonding jumper but is the EGC even there?
Click to expand...


Do you mean in the graphic? If yes, the metallic raceway exiting the top of the service disconnect would be the EGC.
 
infinity said:
Do you mean in the graphic? If yes, the metallic raceway exiting the top of the service disconnect would be the EGC.
Click to expand...

I see that in the graphic but how does that compare to that as pictured in the OP? I see a bonding jumper but is the EGC required also which doesn't appear to be present there.
 
I don't see the conduit bonded either, unless that is some special fitting on the end of the EMT??? I would never use EMT to sleeve a GEC just because of this extra requirement?.

personally, the GEC was way oversized to begin with in the OP's picture, why even sleeve it to begin with?
 
templdl said:
I see that in the graphic but how does that compare to that as pictured in the OP? I see a bonding jumper but is the EGC required also which doesn't appear to be present there.
Click to expand...

When the conduit stops before the ground rod, I believe there are two ways to make it compliant:

1. Bond the EGC enclosed by the conduit at both ends of the conduit by using a listed fitting (which I believe the OP said they did.)

2. As shown in Rogers graphic, extend a bonding wire from the conduit (attached with some type of listed fitting) to the ground rod.

Either way, the conduit could stop when protection is no longer necessary.
 
kingpb said:
Seriously, I think that needs to be pointed out. You cannot mark a ground conductor with red tape.
Click to expand...
Actually you can, there is no color requirement for the GEC.

Roger
 
I believe the issue is that the AHJ did not feel that the conductor was effectively protected and thus wants to see the conduit installed closer the ground rod connection. But, it does not look like there is a bonding jumper attached to the conduit either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top