pulling grounding conductors

Status
Not open for further replies.
nakulak said:
then again, maybe once the word gets around, and the news starts covering every death from "stray voltage", the ambulance chasing lawyers will get involved.
Click to expand...
I don't see how the "utility bonding jumper" would solve any stray voltage problems - are you being funny or serious?

Don said:
That is outside the scope of the NEC. You would have to get that change made in the NESC and the utilties to agree with it as the NESC is not a legally adopted code in many areas.
Click to expand...
Well, everybody's pretty good-ole-boy around here, so it probably wouldn't be a big deal if it was engineered that way. ;)
 
if the utility grounding system was removed, and the utility ran, say, 3phase 4 wire wye with a bonding conductor, no earth return, and premise wiring was not earth grounded, it seems that stray current using ground as a return path would be eliminated (?).
 
I rarely say never but I will here.

The utility will never in my lifetime provide an EGC and I don't think I want them to.
 
I am not sure that there is any reason to pull the undersized EGC wire. The code does not say that you can't pull an undersized EGC, only that you have to have a proper EGC, and the EMT provides that.
 
Bob,
The code does not say that you can't pull an undersized EGC, only that you have to have a proper EGC, and the EMT provides that.
Click to expand...
The code does not limit you to one EGC per circuit.
250.118 Types of Equipment Grounding Conductors
The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit conductors shall be one or more or a combination of the following: ....
Click to expand...
Both the raceway and the internal conductor, if one is installed, are EGCs per the code rule. That being said, then 250.122 applies to the EGC that is installed inside a raceway that is in itself suitable for use as an EGC.
Don
 
Here's a question simply for the sake of better understanding the NEC:

Let's say it was spec'd that a EGC be run inside metallic conduit. That conduit contains wiring for three branch circuits: two 15A circuits (using #14AWG), and one 20A circuit (using #12AWG). Will a single #12AWG green wire EGC in that raceway be code compliant?


{Edited to correct my typo: "GEC" changed to "EGC"}
 
Last edited:
Jon456 said:
Here's a question simply for the sake of better understanding the NEC:

Let's say it was spec'd that a GEC be run inside metallic conduit. That conduit contains wiring for three branch circuits: two 15A circuits (using #14AWG), and one 20A circuit (using #12AWG). Will a single #12AWG green wire GEC in that raceway be code compliant?
Click to expand...


One #12 EGC will be all that's required. Notice I said EGC not GEC.
 
infinity said:
Notice I said EGC not GEC.
Click to expand...

Oops... I meant EGC. It's late and I've got GEC on my brain from another thread.

(I just edited my earlier post to avoid any confusion.)
 
Last edited:
Related question (again assuming that an EGC was spec'd): what are the pros/cons of pulling a green-insulated EGC versus a bare EGC?

It seems to me that if you're actually going to put an EGC inside metallic conduit, then a bare wire would be a better choice than an insulated one. But perhaps I'm missing something.
 
The pros and cons aren't so much the issue of using one over the other, there are articles and sections that mandate insulated EGC's and take this out of the question.

See 517.13 and article 680 for a couple of examples of where an insulated EGC is required.

Roger
 
I guess I never gave my opinion on the subject of pulling redundant grounding conductors in EMT. I frequently omit an EGC in metal raceway given the choice.

Like Bob said, do we add an extra EGC to the outside of MC or NM cable "just in case"? I know the argument about forgetting to tighten locknuts and connector screws, but does that mean that everyone splices with 100% accuracy? If you forget to tighten a screw once in a while, there's a chance you might botch up a splice once in a while too.
 
georgestolz said:
I don't think that's true for me personally, but to each their own. :)
Click to expand...

I just don't understand the logic, that's all I'm getting at. It seems like missing an EMT setscrew connector is an acceptable screw-up, so just in case we run a ground wire. Why don't we just try to improve our installation methods for EMT instead of running EGC's to make up for a missed setscrew?
 
One thing you can't account for is other trades down the road. I've seen newly ran EMT that had been pushed out of the way by the tin benders. The coupler and EMT had seperated. I've also had couplers break while tightening the set screw. In a metal building the risk is negligible but still a ground wire ran would ensure a good path to ground in this case. I just can't see the cost of one #12 in most cases being that detrimental to making money on a project.
 
iwire said:
.

Besides about 1,300' less 3/0 CU the EMT size was reduced and the labor for pulling and terminating was reduced. (It was design build)
Click to expand...

iwire said:
My example involved 1,300' of 3/0 copper EGC.
Click to expand...

That is not a pull you want to eat "just in case"
Especially if there are no specs!
 
wireman71 said:
I've seen newly ran EMT that had been pushed out of the way by the tin benders.
Click to expand...

I can see that happening with 1/2 and 3/4 EMT. So if it makes you feel better, run an EGC. :)

But no tin knocker, or any other trade, is going to be pushing a rack of 3" EMT's with 600's in them out of the way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top