# Using bonded box to connect 2 ground splices



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

If the NEC prohibits it, millions of device boxes are wrong.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Use self-grounding switches.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

CoolWill said:


> Use self-grounding switches.


Is this what you meant by self grounding switch? They only work with metal boxes? It sure would make it easier to make up your switch boxes if you didn't have to run grounding pig tails to each switch. The only issue I see is that most installs now days are dimmer switches or electronic switches with integrated gr. pig tails so there are still grounds to deal with. The Ideal 454 blue wire nuts are good for 6#12's. As much as I dislike WAGOs this might be a good application for them.
Leviton 3033-2 30a, 120/277v, 3-Way Ac Quiet Switch, Self Grounding


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

AloftyElectrician said:


> I figure it's fine because the metal box is a perfectly good conductor and connects them together.
> Is anything in the NEC that prohibits this?
> 
> Here's a pic for example
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GBvC2rDKQRISvzYTF9WkWS97ZNNcFIOc/view?usp=drivesdk


I try to make as little wire connections as possible, so I’ll do that and if I have extra 10/24 screw holes, I’ll just dead end some of the egcs there.

If you’re looking for a reference, only the EGCs in 250.148 are acceptable to be used, the box actually isn’t one. It’s never called, but by the wording the box doesn’t qualify.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

This is where the barrel crimps really shine. The Ideal's can take up to 10 #14's. 

Just give them a twist, slide a barrel over them and crimp, then tuck it all into the back of the box except for the 3-4 that you will use to land on each device.

If you are using a metal box (WHY???) loop one under a ground screw to bond the box as well.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> This is where the barrel crimps really shine. The Ideal's can take up to 10 #14's.
> 
> Just give them a twist, slide a barrel over them and crimp, then tuck it all into the back of the box except for the 3-4 that you will use to land on each device.
> 
> If you are using a metal box (WHY???) loop one under a ground screw to bond the box as well.


Yes indeed the old barrel crimp. They hardly take up any room at all and work well. They are difficult to remove but serve the purpose. So if the larger barrels can accept 10 #14s then you could just leave 3 or 4 of them long enough to reach the switches and cut the rest of them off just past the crimp. Also leave one long enough to reach the metal box to ground it as well. Make sure you remove the insulation before installing the barrel crimp. That's probably obvious but I did not want any blow back.

I think your asking WHY??? a metal box? Perhaps it was larger than a plastic box to accommodate wire fill and as we can see from the photo it looks like BX cable coming into the box. All metal boxes must be grounded and I know you know that.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

Awg-Dawg said:


> I try to make as little wire connections as possible, so I’ll do that and if I have extra 10/24 screw holes, I’ll just dead end some of the egcs there.
> 
> If you’re looking for a reference, only the EGCs in 250.148 are acceptable to be used, the box actually isn’t one. It’s never called, but by the wording the box doesn’t qualify.


You're bonding the box with a gnd wire. The box was never meant to be a current path.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> Yes indeed the old barrel crimp. They hardly take up any room at all and work well. They are difficult to remove but serve the purpose. So if the larger barrels can accept 10 #14s then you could just leave 3 or 4 of them long enough to reach the switches and cut the rest of them off just past the crimp.


 As long as you have the required 6" of conductor, then yes.



> They are difficult to remove


 True, but it doesn't make sense to perform installations today in ways that make it easier for someone to completely change that installation later. The likelihood of that happening is crazy. If someone does need to make a change later, just cut the wires that they need to remove.



> Also leave one long enough to reach the metal box to ground it as well. Make sure you remove the insulation before installing the barrel crimp. That's probably obvious but I did not want any blow back.
> 
> I think your asking WHY??? a metal box? Perhaps it was larger than a plastic box to accommodate wire fill and as we can see from the photo it looks like BX cable coming into the box. All metal boxes must be grounded and I know you know that.


I didn't see the photo when I made that post. I thought we were talking about a residential switchbox. In commercial with insulated grounds I would just wirenut them like the OP said.

BTW, the 2 wires under the right ground screw doesn't fly.


----------



## joebanana (Dec 21, 2010)

Doesn't anybody use ground clips anymore?


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

joebanana said:


> Doesn't anybody use ground clips anymore?


IMO poor mechanical connection.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Why would someone use a ground clip when the box has threaded screw holes for grounding? 

My understanding is that ground clips are a crappy last-ditch-effort when there is no other option to bond the box.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> This is where the barrel crimps really shine. The Ideal's can take up to 10 #14's.
> 
> Just give them a twist, slide a barrel over them and crimp, then tuck it all into the back of the box except for the 3-4 that you will use to land on each device.
> 
> If you are using a metal box (WHY???) loop one under a ground screw to bond the box as well.


Blecccchhh. I'd daisy chain several 10 port wagos together before I used a barrel crimp like that. I hate barrel crimps with a passion. With the wagos there's no crimping or twisting required. Just cut and push, done.


----------



## joebanana (Dec 21, 2010)

Bird dog said:


> IMO poor mechanical connection.


When you put the mud ring on, they're not going anywhere. If you have limited space in a box, they take up less space than blue wirenuts.


----------



## joebanana (Dec 21, 2010)

Bird dog said:


> You're bonding the box with a gnd wire. The box was never meant to be a current path.


Ground(ing) wires aren't meant to be current carrying. Except under abnormal conditions.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Why would someone use a ground clip when the box has threaded screw holes for grounding?
> 
> My understanding is that ground clips are a crappy last-ditch-effort when there is no other option to bond the box.


great explanation.:smile:


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

Use MCAP with self grounding devices and not deal with a ground at all


----------



## oliquir (Jan 13, 2011)

only problem is 2 wires under the ground screw


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

electricalwiz said:


> Use MCAP with self grounding devices and not deal with a ground at all


If I ever do commercial again, that is what I will do.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Awg-Dawg said:


> I try to make as little wire connections as possible, so I’ll do that and if I have extra 10/24 screw holes, I’ll just dead end some of the egcs there.
> 
> If you’re looking for a reference, only the EGCs in 250.148 are acceptable to be used, the box actually isn’t one. It’s never called, but by the wording the box doesn’t qualify.


If that's true, why does the code allow self-grounding devices or devices to be grounded by metal-to-metal contact between the yoke and box?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Awg-Dawg said:


> If you’re looking for a reference, only the EGCs in 250.148 are acceptable to be used, the box actually isn’t one. It’s never called, but by the wording the box doesn’t qualify.


 I'm not following.



> *250.148 Continuity and Attachment of Equipment Grounding*
> Conductors to Boxes. If circuit conductors are spliced within
> a box or terminated on equipment within or supported by a
> box, all equipment grounding conductor(s) associated with any
> ...


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Bonding switches :vs_laugh:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

I never bond switches in metal boxes. :no::no: It's not required by the NEC anyway, and I have no clue why people waste time doing it.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> I'm not following.


Oops, I see why you’re not following. 

It’s 250.118


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

MTW said:


> I never bond switches in metal boxes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I never did before either, but it is now a requirement in the 2018 Canadian code.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

emtnut said:


> Bonding switches :vs_laugh:


They decided to enforce it here a few years ago. The way around it was to buy switches with no bonding screw. That took care of that.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Awg-Dawg said:


> Oops, I see why you’re not following.
> 
> It’s 250.118


I don’t have access to a code book right now, but I’m not sure what you mean. How is attaching EGCs to the box via multiple ground screws any different than attaching them to a ground bar, or multiple ground lugs?


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

Incognito said:


> I never did before either, but it is now a requirement in the 2018 Canadian code.


How do we do that if there isn't a ground screw on the switch ?

I know that some are starting to show up here now, but last time I bought switches, I could still find lots without the ground screw (I think the only ones with a ground screw were the Cooper switches ... figured Lowes brought them in from the states)


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

emtnut said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> > I never did before either, but it is now a requirement in the 2018 Canadian code.
> ...


You can’t of course. The code only applies if there is a bonding terminal. I assume they will all come with them eventually. 

10-612(5) .......and a
device attached to the enclosure has a bonding terminal.....


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> I don’t have access to a code book right now, but I’m not sure what you mean. How is attaching EGCs to the box via multiple ground screws any different than attaching them to a ground bar, or multiple ground lugs?


 I see it as no difference and I do it all the time.

It’s just the box/enclosure isn’t One of the egcs the listed in 250.118.

It mentions wire, raceways, AC cable sheaths and gutters,etc.

You’re using the box to continue the egc and the box isn’t mentioned as one.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

emtnut said:


> How do we do that if there isn't a ground screw on the switch ?
> 
> I know that some are starting to show up here now, but last time I bought switches, I could still find lots without the ground screw (I think the only ones with a ground screw were the Cooper switches ... figured Lowes brought them in from the states)


If they require us to bond switches now, I want to see the variety of plastic boxes that are available in the US.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Awg-Dawg said:


> I see it as no difference and I do it all the time.
> 
> It’s just the box/enclosure isn’t One of the egcs the listed in 250.118.
> 
> ...


What I’m not understanding is why you think the box needs to be listed as an EGC. It’s not being used as an EGC. Either is a typical electrical panel where EGC’s terminate.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

99cents said:


> If they require us to bond switches now, I want to see the variety of plastic boxes that are available in the US.


I'd think we don't need that bonding strip either, and pricing will come down ..... hahahaha I said pricing will come down :vs_laugh:


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

emtnut said:


> I'd think we don't need that bonding strip either, and pricing will come down ..... hahahaha I said pricing will come down :vs_laugh:


You’re hilarious!


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> What I’m not understanding is why you think the box needs to be listed as an EGC. It’s not being used as an EGC. Either is a typical electrical panel where EGC’s terminate.


I don’t think it has to be listed.

It is being used as an egc in the picture. (As are most boxes)

I think the panel is the same unless they all terminate together.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

I’ve heard from some that when using single gang boxes connected together to make a larger box, you can not use it as a bond and must connect the boxes together inside with a conductor. 

Never seen a code for that of course


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Awg-Dawg said:


> I don’t think it has to be listed.
> 
> It is being used as an egc in the picture. (As are most boxes)
> 
> I think the panel is the same unless they all terminate together.


It’s not being used as an EGC in my opinion. Just like the little piece of metal connecting each of the five ports inside of a wago levernut is not being used as an EGC either


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Incognito said:


> I’ve heard from some that when using single gang boxes connected together to make a larger box, you can not use it as a bond and must connect the boxes together inside with a conductor.
> 
> Never seen a code for that of course


That’s the kind of rule you hear from a second year apprentice who has spent ten years in the trade.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

HackWork said:


> It’s not being used as an EGC in my opinion. Just like the little piece of metal connecting each of the five ports inside of a wago levernut is not being used as an EGC either


That's like saying the screw is not listed as an EGC.

Maybe it needs a kenny clamp :biggrin:


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

99cents said:


> Thatâ€™️s the kind of rule you hear from a second year apprentice who has spent ten years in the trade.


I call those guys “Master apprentices”!!! There are a few on this site I do believe


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Incognito said:


> I call those guys “Master apprentices”!!! There are a few on this site I do believe


:vs_mad::vs_mad::vs_mad::vs_mad:


----------



## AloftyElectrician (Dec 16, 2018)

oliquir said:


> only problem is 2 wires under the ground screw


OP here. Why isn't this allowed?

Have we settled that the box counts as a allowable medium for the EGC? Thanks for all the input y'all.


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

HackWork said:


> If I ever do commercial again, that is what I will do.


I do not understand why most guys are still using regular MC. MCAP is faster and the boxes and panels have a 1/3 the wire in them. I get mad when running larger MC because I have to deal with the ground


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

CoolWill said:


> Incognito said:
> 
> 
> > I call those guys â€œMaster apprenticesâ€!!! There are a few on this site I do believe


Are you a master apprentice Will?


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

AloftyElectrician said:


> OP here. Why isn't this allowed?
> 
> Have we settled that the box counts as a allowable medium for the EGC? Thanks for all the input y'all.


Good question. In the photo you posted your'e using the metal box to connect the EGC together. Code says "Equipment grounding conductors must be spliced together with a device listed for the purpose [110.14(B) and 250.148(A)]." A metal box is not listed as an EGC so I think some inspectors might not accept it as such. I would splice all your EGC's together and then bond the box to the EGC.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> Good question. In the photo you posted your'e using the metal box to connect the EGC together. Code says "Equipment grounding conductors must be spliced together with a device listed for the purpose [110.14(B) and 250.148(A)]." *A metal box is not listed as an EGC so I think some inspectors might not accept it as such.* I would splice all your EGC's together and then bond the box to the EGC.


This is insane. No one is using a metal box as the EGC. The metal box is being used as a metal box, just like it is supposed to be used.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Sure, you're using the box as part of the EGC. But I think that's OK. It's done with metallic conduit all the time, right? 

If you bond the EGCs to two spots on the box, the box is part of the EGC just like with conduit, the box between KOs is part of the EGC. 

You aslo use the tab between terminals on a receptacle as part of the circuit conductors when you don't pigtail ...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> Sure, you're using the box as part of the EGC.


 I don't agree with that. The EGC stops at the terminal, screw, connector, etc. that it terminates into.



> But I think that's OK. It's done with metallic conduit all the time, right?


 Conduit is part of the wiring method, and therefore being used as the EGC. The box is a different component altogether. 



> If you bond the EGCs to two spots on the box, the box is part of the EGC just like with conduit, the box between KOs is part of the EGC.


 That's like saying that a ground bar is an EGC, or the metal bus inside of a Wago. They aren't EGC's and not subject to rules or restrictions that the code places on EGC's.



> You aslo use the tab between terminals on a receptacle as part of the circuit conductors when you don't pigtail ...


 That's a bit of a different discussion. But just think how that tab is not considered a conductor and not subject to any of the rules encompassing wiring methods.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

HackWork said:


> But just think how that tab is not considered a conductor and not subject to any of the rules encompassing wiring methods.


If you think about it wiring method rules don't really apply anywhere within a box; a box can be used to transition between wiring methods.


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

> A metal box is not listed as an EGC



I have a lot of self grounding recepts and switches to throw out now :vs_mad:


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

I am not sure how to reckon it with the code but the fact is you have an equipment grounding system part of which is the equipment grounding conductors. 

Same as the grounding electrode system is not just the conductors it's also the electrodes, and you can install a jumper from building steel to a transformer.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

splatz said:


> I am not sure how to reckon it with the code but the fact is you have an equipment grounding system part of which is the equipment grounding conductors.


Yes, the EGC is just one part of the system. There is no requirement for every part of the entire system to be made up only of EGC's listed in 250.118.


Definition: "_The EGC connects the non-current carrying metal parts of electrical systems to the system grounded conductor or the grounding electrode conductor (or both)._"

The metal box is not an EGC, it is one of the _non-current carrying metal parts of electrical systems_ that the EGC bonds together.



splatz said:


> Same as the grounding electrode system is not just the conductors it's also the electrodes, and you can install a jumper from building steel to a transformer.


 Exactly. Also the taps going to multiple disconnects are not GEC's. GEC's are just one specific part of the system, as are EGCs.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Wow, so now that we have worked so hard to identify the tiny piece of sheetmetal between two holes, are we ready to take over the world??


----------



## flyboy (Jun 13, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Yes, the EGC is just one part of the system. There is no requirement for every part of the entire system to be made up only of EGC's listed in 250.118.
> 
> 
> *Definition: "The EGC connects the non-current carrying metal parts of electrical systems to the system grounded conductor or the grounding electrode conductor (or both)."
> ...


Ding ding ding....we have a winner! :thumbsup:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I understand what Awg-Dawg is saying.

In the situation of the OP, the metal box is not just being bonded, it is also acting as a connection between EGC's. Instead of using a copper wire (which would be an EGC) to connect those 2 groups of EGC's wirenutted together, he is using the metal box. 

But it still doesn't mean that the box is an EGC and is bound by code restricting EGC's.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

HackWork said:


> I understand what Awg-Dawg is saying.
> 
> In the situation of the OP, the metal box is not just being bonded, it is also acting as a connection between EGC's. Instead of using a copper wire (which would be an EGC) to connect those 2 groups of EGC's wirenutted together, he is using the metal box.
> 
> But it still doesn't mean that the box is an EGC and is bound by code restricting EGC's.


Like Splatz already showed, if conduit were being used, then that same box would be the connection between EGCs as conduits entered and exited.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

Does the continuity of a metal box change depending on circumstance? Do different electrons travel through metallic boxes and conduit compared to wire?


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> This is insane. No one is using a metal box as the EGC. The metal box is being used as a metal box, just like it is supposed to be used.


Actually it's is, in this case. It may not be "code legal" but from looking at the photo it has become part of the ECG. In a ground fault condition electrons would flow back through the first section of 12 gage wire then through the box then on to the next 12 gage wire. If you remove the box you have a break in the EGC.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

99cents said:


> Does the continuity of a metal box change depending on circumstance? Do different electrons travel through metallic boxes and conduit compared to wire?


Copper has a better conductivity than metal. Heat reduces conductivity but the same electrons are involved in the process.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Easy said:


> Actually it's is, in this case. It may not be "code legal" but from looking at the photo it has become part of the ECG. In a ground fault condition electrons would flow back through the first section of 12 gage wire then through the box then on to the next 12 gage wire. If you remove the box you have a break in the EGC.


If you remove the box, you break the entire circuit anyway. And this would apply to any metal box on any metal conduit circuit where the conduit is the EGC.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

99cents said:


> Does the continuity of a metal box change depending on circumstance? Do different electrons travel through metallic boxes and conduit compared to wire?


Yes. Here in the States, they prefer to be called "Particle Americans" and they only go where the NAACP* says they go.

*Nuclear Association for the Advancement of Charged Particles


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> Actually it's is, in this case. It may not be "code legal" but from looking at the photo it has become part of the ECG. In a ground fault condition electrons would flow back through the first section of 12 gage wire then through the box then on to the next 12 gage wire. If you remove the box you have a break in the EGC.


That does not make it "the EGC". It is part of the electrical grounding system, but not an "Equipment Grounding Conductor".

There are many parts of the grounding system that are not EGC's.



Easy said:


> Copper has a better conductivity than metal. Heat reduces conductivity but the same electrons are involved in the process.


Copper is only a better conductor when taking the size into consideration. A piece of 4" rigid steel pipe will conduct way better than a #12 copper conductor.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Back in the 1960's when they piped entire buildings with EMT, they never ran a ground wire anywhere, at least I've yet to see it. The whole EGC argument becomes superfluous in that situation.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

CoolWill said:


> If you remove the box, you break the entire circuit anyway. And this would apply to any metal box on any metal conduit circuit where the conduit is the EGC.


Are we spitting hairs or EGC's? I really don't see any problem with the way the EGC is connected It would function just as it is but, it's not code legal in my opinion. I agree that you can use conduit and metal boxes, condulets and fittings as an EGC. If your using a conductor (wire or cable) don't jump from wire to metal enclosure then back to wire and consider that to be the ultimate design. Use one or the other. :smile:


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> That does not make it "the EGC". It is part of the electrical grounding system, but not an "Equipment Grounding Conductor".
> 
> There are many parts of the grounding system that are not EGC's.
> 
> ...


You brat :smile:


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

MTW said:


> Back in the 1960's when they piped entire buildings with EMT, they never ran a ground wire anywhere, at least I've yet to see it. The whole EGC argument becomes superfluous in that situation.


1960s? I piped an entire building last week in EMT and didn't run a ground wire...


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

CoolWill said:


> 1960s? I piped an entire building last week in EMT and didn't run a ground wire...


Oh, did you?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> Are we spitting hairs or EGC's? I really don't see any problem with the way *the EGC is connected*


 The EGC connects, terminates, ends. 

The EGC connects/terminates/ends into many different items. Ground bars, connectors, terminal strips, under screws, etc. etc. None of these things that the EGC connects/terminates/ends into are EGC's. Other than you and Awg-Dog, I have never seen anyone try to say that those things are EGC's. I have not found any conversation of this on other electrical forums or groups either.



> It would function just as it is but, it's not code legal in my opinion. I agree that you can use conduit and metal boxes, condulets and fittings as an EGC.


So how would that be compliant? If you ran 3/4" EMT to multiple 1900 boxes and used the pipe as the EGC, how would that be compliant because the box would be the EGC (in your opinion) in this situation as well. The box would bond those pipes together.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

Hackworks we all know size matters but we have standards to follow. Workmanship and consistency is very important.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> Hackworks we all know size matters but we have standards to follow. Workmanship and consistency is very important.


I have no idea what this means or how it comes into the conversation.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Easy said:


> Are we spitting hairs or EGC's? I really don't see any problem with the way the EGC is connected It would function just as it is but, it's not code legal in my opinion. I agree that you can use conduit and metal boxes, condulets and fittings as an EGC. If your using a conductor (wire or cable) don't jump from wire to metal enclosure then back to wire and consider that to be the ultimate design. Use one or the other. :smile:


The code says the EGC should be electrically continuous. Using the box satisfies that. I personally wouldn't do ot the way the pic in the OP did, but I can't see a code violation other than the two wires under a screw.

The removing the box argument isn't about splitting hairs. It's just a fact. IF someone removes the box, they break the entire circuit. There is no need for a ground if there is no circuit. Besides, the "what if" thing can go anywhere. What if someone takes an axe to the box? What if a truck crashes through the wall? What if a plumber cuts through the main panel?


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

MTW said:


> Oh, did you?


Indeed.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> The EGC connects, terminates, ends.
> 
> The EGC connects/terminates/ends into many different items. Ground bars, connectors, terminal strips, under screws, etc. etc. None of these things that the EGC connects/terminates/ends into are EGC's. Other than you and Awg-Dog, I have never seen anyone try to say that those things are EGC's. I have not found any conversation of this on other electrical forums or groups either.
> 
> ...


It's simply 2 different methods. Why run a (wire) EGC and transition to a box then back to a wire. Keep it consistent so the next guy has a better understanding of what is going on.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> It's simply 2 different methods. Why run a (wire) EGC and transition to a box then back to a wire. Keep it consistent so the next guy has a better understanding of what is going on.


You are not understanding what I asked you.

You said that connecting the copper EGC's to the box is not code compliant because the box is not listed as an EGC.

If that was true, then how can you connect pipes being used as the EGC to the box? That is still using the box as an EGC (in your opinion) the same way, so that is not code compliant either?


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

CoolWill said:


> The code says the EGC should be electrically continuous. Using the box satisfies that. I personally wouldn't do ot the way the pic in the OP did, but I can't see a code violation other than the two wires under a screw.
> 
> The removing the box argument isn't about splitting hairs. It's just a fact. IF someone removes the box, they break the entire circuit. There is no need for a ground if there is no circuit. Besides, the "what if" thing can go anywhere. What if someone takes an axe to the box? What if a truck crashes through the wall? What if a plumber cuts through the main panel?


Ok don't remove the box just remove one grounding screw and your EGC becomes worthless. I'm just saying that it's best practice to join all your conductors then bond the box as required by code.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> Ok don't remove the box just remove one grounding screw and your EGC becomes worthless.


 Remove one wirenut and your EGC becomes the same thing.



> I'm just saying that it's best practice to join all your conductors then bond the box as required by code.


Best practice is an opinion.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> You are not understanding what I asked you.
> 
> You said that connecting the copper EGC's to the box is not code compliant because the box is not listed as an EGC.
> 
> If that was true, then how can you connect pipes being used as the EGC to the box? That is still using the box as an EGC (in your opinion) the same way, so that is not code compliant either?


No.. I get ya man. Totally understand your point. I just think that using conduit as apposed to using wire is 2 completely different methods and should not be intermixed in the name of consistency. It may or may not be code compliant I really don't know. I just know that I have never done it that way.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> No.. I get ya man. Totally understand your point. I just think that using conduit as apposed to using wire is 2 completely different methods and should not be intermixed in the name of consistency. It may or may not be code compliant I really don't know. I just know that I have never done it that way.


I am not talking about intermixing. 

I am asking if it is code compliant to run pipe into a box and have the box as the only thing connecting those pipes?


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> I am not talking about intermixing.
> 
> I am asking if it is code compliant to run pipe into a box and have the box as the only thing connecting those pipes?


Yes it is compliant with the National Electrical Code. And yes 2" rigid would be a much better path than a piece of 12 gage copper wire. Actually the fault current would travel on both paths the wire and the conduit and boxes. Just be careful if you want to pass inspection. Some cities require a wire to be used as your EGC and in the State of Washington they require you to pull in a green wire if you install EMT outdoors. At least that's how it was many years ago when I lived there.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Section 358.60 answers the question of emt being used as a equipment grounding conductor.

An equipment grounding conductor is not needed in the conduit unless the plans or specs call for it. Most contractors that I know run an equipment grounding conductor wire.

As Hax stated earlier a 1/2" emt is a better ground than a #12... I know he said 4" rigid but you don't even have to get that large. Of course, whenever pipe is used as an equipment grounding conductor we are depending on the connection being made up tight.



> 358.60 Grounding. EMT shall be permitted as an equipment
> grounding conductor.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

Again... Hax is off his meds.

The totally metallic return path -- bonding path -- can be constructed of steel or copper.

It is only designed to handle fault current.

When this happens, the OCPD is supposed to pop open -- killing the hot.

We all know that, but then Hax chimes in.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> Yes it is compliant with the National Electrical Code.


 Why do you think that you can use the box to connect the 2 pipe EGC's, but not 2 copper EGC's?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

telsa said:


> Again... Hax is off his meds.
> 
> The totally metallic return path -- bonding path -- can be constructed of steel or copper.
> 
> ...


I think it is you who chimed in with nonsense. I don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> The EGC connects, terminates, ends.
> 
> The EGC connects/terminates/ends into many different items. Ground bars, connectors, terminal strips, under screws, etc. etc. None of these things that the EGC connects/terminates/ends into are EGC's. Other than you and Awg-Dog, I have never seen anyone try to say that those things are EGC's. I have not found any conversation of this on other electrical forums or groups either.
> 
> ...


 3/4" EMT and 1900 boxes might be compliant but I would never trust it. One lose fitting would destroy the integrity of the EGC. I don't think that Dog or myself are calling the box an EGC we are just stating that a box is an unambiguous part to the entire EGC if there was no ground wire pulled in with the conductors. 
Personally I pull grounds in every raceway I install so it's not an issue. I just wonder if you can split your EGC and use a "metal box" as part of the EGC?
This box has 2 ground points and don't think they are intended to be used this way. I think they are just for the convenience of bonding the box. I could be totally wrong in my thinking but I'm learning.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> Why do you think that you can use the box to connect the 2 pipe EGC's, but not 2 copper EGC's?


IDK Sloppy workmanship ? I'm sure it would function as an EGC. I just can't actually find anything in code that does not allow for it.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

Easy said:


> IDK Sloppy workmanship ?


If someone is sloppy enough to botch the pipe install, what makes you think they will install the wire any better?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> I don't think that Dog or myself are calling the box an EGC


 That is exactly what Awg-Dog called it, and the reason why he thinks it's not compliant. He said that it is not compliant because the box is not listed as an acceptable EGC.



> we are just stating that a box is an unambiguous part to the entire EGC if there was no ground wire pulled in with the conductors.


 So then what is your reasoning for it being against code to connect the copper EGC's to the box for continuity??

I am not asking your opinion on workmanship, I am asking why you think it is against code? Which article prohibits it?



> Personally I pull grounds in every raceway I install so it's not an issue. I just wonder if you can split your EGC and use a "metal box" as part of the EGC?


 So we are back to you calling the metal box an EGC. It's not an EGC, but it can be used to connect EGCs to.



> This box has 2 ground points and don't think they are intended to be used this way. I think they are just for the convenience of bonding the box. I could be totally wrong in my thinking but I'm learning.


 You can't just say "I think the code wouldn't allow this", you have to show which code prohibits it.



Easy said:


> IDK Sloppy workmanship ?


I am not asking about workmanship, I am asking a code question.

You said that you do not think it is code compliant to connect 2 copper EGC's to a metal box, because the box is not listed as a compliant EGC to connect them. But then you said you think it is compliant to connect 2 pieces of pipe used as EGC's to the box.

I am asking you why you believe that. Why do you think it's compliant to use the box as "the EGC" in one situation but not the other?


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

CoolWill said:


> If someone is sloppy enough to botch the pipe install, what makes you think they will install the wire any better?


I agree but the EGC in my opinion is the most important part of the install and if it's good then the rest of it can be a bit sloppy. I am just seeking the truth here. Is using the Box in this manner ok?


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> That is exactly what Awg-Dog called it, and the reason why he thinks it's not compliant. He said that it is not compliant because the box is not listed as an acceptable EGC.
> 
> So then what is your reasoning for it being against code to connect the copper EGC's to the box for continuity??
> 
> ...


A box is a box and not called an EGC. I get that... You got me on the fact that I cant quote actual code on this. Please enlighten me.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

I still don't understand why the box can be used with pipe EGC's, but not copper conductor EGC's.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

HackWork said:


> I still don't understand why the box can be used with pipe EGC's, but not copper conductor EGC's.


Ok now I know the code as you stated here. Thanks. I agree why can't you use the box to connect 2 EGC's? It would function the same way. The only reason I put up such a fuss over this is because I wanted to know if it was compliant. I have never seen it done this way. Thanks HackWorks.. We can't know it all but you always have good insight and I trust you.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> Ok now I know the code as you stated here. Thanks. I agree why can't you use the box to connect 2 EGC's? It would function the same way. The only reason I put up such a fuss over this is because I wanted to know if it was compliant. I have never seen it done this way. Thanks HackWorks.. We can't know it all but you always have good insight and I trust you.


I'm learning as I go. I try to wrap my head around things by relating and comparing them to other things.

So the point that splatz made earlier was a perfect one for me to do that. If it's compliant to use the box as a way to connect 2 pipe EGC's, then it stands to reason that it is also compliant to use the box to connect 2 copper EGCs. 

There could be something else prohibiting that, such as a specific code article, and I would be interested in seeing that. But without it, I think it's safe to say that it is compliant to do what the OP did.

Now I am still wondering what telsa is talking about with OCPD's and other things that never entered into this discussion... :vs_laugh:


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

My only issue with grounding the box at 2 points is this. Let's say a less experienced or perhaps lazy person with bad eyesight comes along later and wants to install a dimmer switch or any device that requires a ground. He looks in the box and say's "hey man some dummy ran 2 grounding pigtails to the box. I don't feel like undoing that wirenut and messing with that I can just use one of the pigtails going to the box to ground my switch" Now by code the EGC is broken.. Regardless of the fact that the device would actually be a ground path back to the box by way of the 6-32 screw. I'ts probably not the case but who knows.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

You can't stop Stupid, Handy men, DIY home owers.

There is no engineering standard that will stop true stupidity and ignorance.


----------



## telsa (May 22, 2015)

As for the OP, I"ve NEVER run out of wire nuts.... 

I keep all sizes ready to hand, always have.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> I still don't understand why the box can be used with pipe EGC's, but not copper conductor EGC's.


 I believe the same applies to metallic raceways.

Also, We all agree that the emt can serve as an egc, the box is metallic and continues the fault path, and the wire egcs are all tied together to the box. ( all that just muddies the water more than I’ve created,lol)

Now, all I’m saying is the language doesn’t support the box being an egc, which I believe it is being us3d as.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Easy said:


> My only issue with grounding the box at 2 points is this. Let's say a less experienced or perhaps lazy person with bad eyesight comes along later and wants to install a dimmer switch or any device that requires a ground. He looks in the box and say's "hey man some dummy ran 2 grounding pigtails to the box. I don't feel like undoing that wirenut and messing with that I can just use one of the pigtails going to the box to ground my switch" Now by code the EGC is broken.. Regardless of the fact that the device would actually be a ground path back to the box by way of the 6-32 screw. It's probably not the case but who knows.


What you are talking about here is a major "what if". I think it's more realistic to get a hack in there that opens up a big splice of grounds to add another one and lets one fall out when putting it back together. That does happen, I've seen it many times when tracking down an open ground. But there is only so much we can do to mitigate what-if's from future unknown work.

I do understand where you are coming from. And I see why you wouldn't do it that way. But from a code perspective, I don't see it being prohibited.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

I’ve got a couple scenarios.

If you run an EMT in and out of a plastic box and pull a wire type EGC, can you tie the in egc to a piece of rebar and tie the out egc to the other side?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Awg-Dawg said:


> I believe the same applies to metallic raceways.


 So let's say that you have a 3/4" pipe run to multiple 1900 boxes. You use the pipe as the EGC, no copper conductor EGC. And forget devices in this situation, so no wire EGCs at all.

After you hit the first box, it is no longer complaint to use the exiting pipe as an EGC because it is only attaching to the box, which is not allowable?


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> So let's say that you have a 3/4" pipe run to multiple 1900 boxes. You use the pipe as the EGC, no copper conductor EGC. And forget devices in this situation, so no wire EGCs at all.
> 
> After you hit the first box, it is no longer complaint to use the exiting pipe as an EGC because it is only attaching to the box, which is not allowable?


 I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything btw, it’s just something I’ve heard and actually believe it says what I think it says.

Now, believe the wording says it isn’t compliant since the box isn’t listed as an egc in the code.

I also believe that the intent is to allow it, if they didn’t there would be wording like in 200.Something, it says the neutral shall not rely on the enclosure for continuity or something like that.

200.2(b) is the reference


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Awg-Dawg said:


> I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything btw, it’s just something I’ve heard and actually believe it says what I think it says.
> 
> Now, believe the wording says it isn’t compliant since the box isn’t listed as an egc in the code.
> 
> I also believe that the intent is to allow it, if they didn’t there would be wording like in 200.Something, it says the neutral shall not rely on the enclosure for continuity or something like that.


Good enough. If you told me that you thought it was prohibited with using copper but allowable when using pipe, then I question why. But if you think the wording doesn't allow it in either situation, then I definitely understand.

I don't agree because I don't think the box (or the other things I listed, like ground bars or wagos) are EGC's in this situation, but I understand what you are saying :smile:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Awg-Dawg said:


> I’ve got a couple scenarios.
> 
> If you run an EMT in and out of a plastic box and pull a wire type EGC, can you tie the in egc to a piece of rebar and tie the out egc to the other side?


*314.3 Nonmetallic Boxes.* Nonmetallic boxes shall be permitted
only with open wiring on insulators, concealed knob-andtube
wiring, cabled wiring methods with entirely nonmetallic
sheaths, flexible cords, and nonmetallic raceways.
_Exception No. 1: Where internal bonding means are provided between
all entries, nonmetallic boxes shall be permitted to be used with metal
raceways or metal-armored cables.
Exception No. 2: Where integral bonding means with a provision for
attaching an equipment bonding jumper inside the box are provided
between all threaded entries in nonmetallic boxes listed for the purpose,
nonmetallic boxes shall be permitted to be used with metal raceways or
metal-armored cables._


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> _Exception No. 1: Where internal bonding means are provided between
> all entries, nonmetallic boxes shall be permitted to be used with metal
> raceways or metal-armored cables.
> ._


 Yeah, that kinda kills my argument, it doesn’t say how or with what to tie them together. :sad:


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Awg-Dawg said:


> Yeah, that kinda kills my argument, it doesn’t say how or with what to tie them together. :sad:


Let's ignore that article completely, let's get to your actual question.

In order to tie those two conductors together, you would have to use an approved method that was listed for the wiring and as a means of grounding, like wirenuts, wagos, ground bars, and metal boxes are.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

HackWork said:


> Let's ignore that article completely, let's get to your actual question.
> 
> In order to tie those two conductors together, you would have to use an approved method that was listed for the wiring and as a means of grounding, like wirenuts, wagos, ground bars, and metal boxes are.


 I have to go out, but I’ll put some more thought into this. 

I’m not convinced yet, but you have me thinking.


----------



## Incognito (Apr 14, 2019)

Going back and forth between a metal enclosure and a conductor for the EGC (bond is what we call it) is done all the time.

Like say you ran emt or rigid metallic pipe for a circuit to a box. In that box you have a receptacle. Not sure about the NEC but here we would have to install a conductor from the ground terminal of the receptacle to the box.

Or if you are installing a motor that is fed with EMT or rigid metallic pipe. You could switch over to a flexible cable for the motor termination and would just connect the bond wire of the cable to the metal box.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

What is this, the Mike Holt Forum?


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

I think the actual post was about splitting up the EGC's in a box and then joining them together by bonding them to that box so that all the EGC's become one. I don't see how it is an issue to do it that way but does it satisfy code?


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

Easy said:


> I think the actual post was about splitting up the EGC's in a box and then joining them together by bonding them to that box so that all the EGC's become one. I don't see how it is an issue to do it that way but does it satisfy code?


 It’s clearly not an electrical issue, whether it’s a code issue is debatable.

I’ve decided to punt and play defense for now.

I think I’m losing,lol.


----------



## Easy (Oct 18, 2017)

Awg-Dawg said:


> It’s clearly not an electrical issue, whether it’s a code issue is debatable.
> 
> I’ve decided to punt and play defense for now.
> 
> I think I’m losing,lol.


lol .. I thought the post would have be dead a while back but instead it has created mass confusion.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

Easy said:


> lol .. I thought the post would have be dead a while back but instead it has created mass confusion.


 It was a good discussion, there’s a lot of sharp guys here, it’s always nice to hear their opinions.


----------

