What is an acceptable EGC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
resistance said:
I would "never" not run an egc--regardless. NEC is minimum code requirements.
Click to expand...

We do not install an EGC when installing EMT in metal structure buildings. Each box, and piece of conduit is solidly attached to the grounded steel structure. Installing a separate grounding wire is a complete waste of time and resources in such instances, IMO.

But, when we have EMT installed in a wood framed structure, where the conduit is not attached to solidly grounded surfaces, we will install a supplemental grounding conductor.

Make sense to you?:roll:
 
radiopet said:
The good news is if we see a conduit with only (3) wires and we think it is using the conduit as the EGC, we will ask the Engineer. And guess what, most of the time they say...opps, we intended for an EGC to be present. I can see where this makes it hard for the EC who is bidding off a set that has not been finally approved yet so all bids should be conditional. To be honest I wish all owners would submit plans prior to accepting bids so that when they submit them to contractors like yourself, eveyone is on the same playing field.

But it does not always work that way....I am aware of that fact...lol
Click to expand...

I have suggested this as well. I feel your pain! :grin:
 
glene77is said:
BarJack,
Did I read the NEC right? For Patient Care areas ...
Does 517.13(A) require "metal" conduit all the way from the receptical box to the circuit breaker box ???...
Click to expand...
The way I read it, yes. It say the "branch circuit" which would originate at the OCP device. Adding that it could be a metallic cable with a qualifying sheath or a metal raceway.

glene77is said:
If so,
then the specs on a previous job I did were at fault....
Click to expand...
Looks that way.

glene77is said:
If EMT and RNC are both used,
then the idea of a Redundant ground is broken.
So, Then,
would we have to pull TWO EGC insulated conductors
to provide the redundant ground?

Looking forward to the comments...
Click to expand...
I'd lead to believe that is not acceptable either. (The RNC folks sure wish it were). NEC say equipment ground IN a metallic raceway or an approved cable, etc. It has no provisions for a redundant conductor .
 
Karl H said:
It is an insignificant cost compared to the liability of someone
injured or killed on a system you installed. Using EMT as a EGC
just doesn't meet "MY" design criteria.
Click to expand...

You can specify it and then it is mandatory and I have no issues installing it, but if not specified I cannot see spending my nickel on installing it to feel good about my work.
 
My copy of the Pinellas County amendments to the NEC is from 1990, but I think they still enforce them the same.
250-75 Bonding Other Enclosures
Metal raceway, cable trays, cable armor, cable sheath, enclosures, frames, fittings, and other metal noncurrent-carrying parts that are to serve as grounding conductors with the use of supplementary equipment grounding conductors shall be effectively bonded where necessary to ensure electrical continuity and the capacity to conduct safely any fault current likely to be imposed on them. Any nonconductive paint, enamel, or similar coating shall be removed at threads, contact points, and contact surfaces or be connected by means of fittings so contact points, and contact surfaces or be connected by means of fittings so designed as to make removal unnecessary. All raceways shall contain a bonding conductor sized in accordance with Table 250-95.

I didn't write it - I just copied it.
 
brian john said:
You can specify it and then it is mandatory and I have no issues installing it, but if not specified I cannot see spending my nickel on installing it to feel good about my work.
Click to expand...

Brian, with all due respect. Have you ever been in charge of a Large
project with 10 plus men ,all of them with varying levels of education?
 
DaveBowden said:
My copy of the Pinellas County amendments to the NEC is from 1990, but I think they still enforce them the same.
250-75 Bonding Other Enclosures
Metal raceway, cable trays, cable armor, cable sheath, enclosures, frames, fittings, and other metal noncurrent-carrying parts that are to serve as grounding conductors with the use of supplementary equipment grounding conductors shall be effectively bonded where necessary to ensure electrical continuity and the capacity to conduct safely any fault current likely to be imposed on them. Any nonconductive paint, enamel, or similar coating shall be removed at threads, contact points, and contact surfaces or be connected by means of fittings so contact points, and contact surfaces or be connected by means of fittings so designed as to make removal unnecessary. All raceways shall contain a bonding conductor sized in accordance with Table 250-95.

I didn't write it - I just copied it.
Click to expand...

I guess its a good thing I always run a wire EGC. :cool:

I take it that Table 250-95 from 1990 is now T.250.122 in 2008?
 
radiopet said:
... 95% of the Electrical Engineers are going to spec an EGC even with metal conduit. When I am doing plan review, if they call for it then it better be there or it is rejected in the field.....I have had electricians in an effort to save a buck choose to not run it when the engineer called for it and we have no choice but to fail it.

They will argue that it is compliant to the NEC and I will agree and then I will say but the "Stamped" and "Sealed" drawings say otherwise and since the engineer called for it we are not at liberty to change it unless they wish to call the engineer and ask the question, raise the point and convince them to change it via a new submital of drawings for full review.
Click to expand...
Paul,
I have a problem with that unless your electrical code specifically states that the installation must be made in compliance with the code as well as the drawings and job specs. If your code only provides for compliance with the NEC, as ours does, you have no legal method of enforcing the job design. That is left up to the owner and engineer.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Paul,
I have a problem with that unless your electrical code specifically states that the installation must be made in compliance with the code as well as the drawings and job specs. If your code only provides for compliance with the NEC, as ours does, you have no legal method of enforcing the job design. That is left up to the owner and engineer.
Click to expand...
Did you actually read my post?...I said during the course of the plan review we ask the engineer was this his/her intent and in 95% of the cases they intended to run an EGC and really wanted one. Where on EARTH did you get that we made them install one?, we ask ALOT of questions on plan review and in many cases we may have 10-20+ real code concerns and then throw in a clarity issue to aid in the review process. This most certainly is not a CRIME.......which legal book are you using?

We simply know what they are wanting to do and we are simply asking if that was their intent. A simple yes is all they need to provide when doing their re-submission or clarrification letter.
 
Last edited:
radiopet said:
Did you actually read my post?...I said during the course of the plan review we ask the engineer was this his/her intent and in 95% of the cases they intended to run an EGC and really wanted one. Where on EARTH did you get that we made them install one?, we ask ALOT of questions on plan review and in many cases we may have 10-20+ real code concerns and then throw in a clarity issue to aid in the review process. This most certainly is not a CRIME.......which legal book are you using?

We simply know what they are wanting to do and we are simply asking if that was their intent. A simple yes is all they need to provide when doing their re-submission or clarrification letter.
Click to expand...
I don't think you read mine! I don't care what the intent of the EE is...I only care if your locally adopted code permits you to enforce what is a private contract. You can only enforce the codes and associated rules as adopted. As I said around here that only includes the actual codes, there is no provision that gives the EI any authority to require compliance with private contact documents (plans and specs). That is left to the owner, engineer, and the contractor.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I don't think you read mine! I don't care what the intent of the EE is...I only care if your locally adopted code permits you to enforce what is a private contract. You can only enforce the codes and associated rules as adopted. As I said around here that only includes the actual codes, there is no provision that gives the EI any authority to require compliance with private contact documents (plans and specs). That is left to the owner, engineer, and the contractor.
Click to expand...

Then obviously we are going to disagree.....we ask plenty of questions on plan reviews that we expect to get answers too. If they choose to do something compliant and we ask them why it is simply based on experience with a given engineer...nothing more...nothing less. During the design phase the EE provides plans, we check for compliance to the NEC, USBC, IBC and a host of other NFPA Documents.....if questions arrise we ask.....this is not a crime and will continue. Amazing how examples turn into the rule.......once the plans are submitted and approved for compliance and stamped by both the engineer and the review department they are intended to be followed...I would not wish to give the implication otherwise.
 
radiopet said:
Then obviously we are going to disagree.....we ask plenty of questions on plan reviews that we expect to get answers too. If they choose to do something compliant and we ask them why it is simply based on experience with a given engineer...nothing more...nothing less. During the design phase the EE provides plans, we check for compliance to the NEC, USBC, IBC and a host of other NFPA Documents.....if questions arrise we ask.....this is not a crime and will continue. Amazing how examples turn into the rule.......once the plans are submitted and approved for compliance and stamped by both the engineer and the review department they are intended to be followed...I would not wish to give the implication otherwise.
Click to expand...
While I fully agree that the plans are intended to be followed, my only point is that unless you have a specific law that states you are to enforce the adopted codes and the private contract documents (the approved plans and specs) you have no business enforcing them. If you have such a rule fine, otherwise...see you in court:D
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
While I fully agree that the plans are intended to be followed, my only point is that unless you have a specific law that states you are to enforce the adopted codes and the private contract documents (the approved plans and specs) you have no business enforcing them. If you have such a rule fine, otherwise...see you in court:D
Click to expand...


I believe that is not a concern with our municipal and the attorneys of such. Things we ask for and require are fully reviewed by the legal department of the City of Richmond. We also enforce the VUSBC which directs us to the complete enforcement and covers all these basis elements.
 
radiopet said:
I believe that is not a concern with our municipal and the attorneys of such. Things we ask for and require are fully reviewed by the legal department of the City of Richmond. We also enforce the VUSBC which directs us to the complete enforcement and covers all these basis elements.
Click to expand...

So your saying you fully support and enforce a law which you have apparently never actually seen. Cool. :grin:
 
radiopet said:
I believe that is not a concern with our municipal and the attorneys of such. Things we ask for and require are fully reviewed by the legal department of the City of Richmond. We also enforce the VUSBC which directs us to the complete enforcement and covers all these basis elements.
Click to expand...
Every case has a losing attorney:D. Just because it has been done this way forever, does not always mean that it is legal...it may just mean that you haven't dealt with anyone stubborn enough to challenge it in court:)
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Every case has a losing attorney:D. Just because it has been done this way forever, does not always mean that it is legal...it may just mean that you haven't dealt with anyone stubborn enough to challenge it in court:)
Click to expand...

Point taken...lol....but I dont fight those fights. I do what I am told and the powers above me can deal with those issues as they dont concern me...lol. However, on some things in our office I would welcome that stubborn individual....
 
Well, actually it's one debate, spread over two threads - I was mulling over moving the slightly OT posts into my thread, to avoid threadjacking this one further.

Edit: But I'm supposed to be cleaning the oven, so I better get back after it before I'm missed. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top