Yet another grounding question

[hydeisland]

Today I got into a conversation with a PM from an integrator I do contract work for. He started talking about "weebs" and I told him how much I didn t like them and I prefered the "old" method of using #10 bare copper for the egc. He then told me I'm out of code compliance because of art. 250.120(C) requiring a #6. I disagree with him because I believe being underneath modules is "where protected from physical damage". Anytime my egc is exposed I use conduit sleeves etc. The only time I do not use sleeves is when it is underneath the modules themselves. In 4 years of doing PV I have never been called on this. Do I now need to start using these "weebs"? I cannot afford to start bonding with #6 and buying the proper rated lugs to go with it.

 

[jaggedben]

This one has been discussed here before, without much resolution. It comes down to whether your AHJ agrees that an EGC underneath panels is 'subject to physical damage' or not. I too have never been called upon to use a #6, though.

As far as WEEBs, there are potential issues with them as well. For example, if module manufacturers don't specifically list them as an acceptable means of grounding the panel. And you still need an EGC to connect to all the racking, so you only save about half the wire that way.

 

[Zee]

Never used #6. #10 fine.

I bet you do , but in case you don't: Keep the EGC neat and tight up against the mod.s (especially on tilt up racked systems) Inspector less likely to view EGC as "subject to damage".