# Is this compliant? GEC question



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I have a 400 amp meter/panel combo. I install a 1/0 copper grounding electrode conductor to a water pipe that is considered an electrode. From the water pipe I take a #4 bonding jumper to the CEE (concrete encased electrode). From the CEE I take a #6 bonding jumper to a ground rod.

What do you think? Compliant or not?


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

I say YES. You have a full size GEC to each electrode.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

yup ////////////////////////

(assuming conductor to rod electrode is not exposed to physical damage)


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

I voted yes per 250.66 A and B. I also assumed you used at least 350MCM for your ungrounded conductors to size the GEC from the meter to the pipe.



> 250.66 Size of Alternating-Current Grounding Electrode
> Conductor. The size of the grounding electrode conductor
> at the service, at each building or structure where
> supplied by a feeder(s) or branch circuit(s), or at a separately
> ...


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I have a 400 amp meter/panel combo. I install a 1/0 copper grounding electrode conductor to a water pipe that is considered an electrode. From the water pipe I take a #4 bonding jumper to the CEE (concrete encased electrode). From the CEE I take a #6 bonding jumper to a ground rod.
> 
> What do you think? Compliant or not?


Yes it is..


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

If I know Dennis, there's some zinger hidden in there somewhere.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

MDShunk said:


> If I know Dennis, there's some zinger hidden in there somewhere.


 There is a curve Ball coming..:laughing:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> If I know Dennis, there's some zinger hidden in there somewhere.


Yep, there is..., maybe, for sure, well perhaps.....


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Well ........ considering the rod is not required it is just an exercise.

And if you tell me the rod is in the specifications I will bet those specs will tell us how to connect it anyway.:thumbsup:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Well ........ considering the rod is not required it is just an exercise.
> 
> And if you tell me the rod is in the specifications I will bet those specs will tell us how to connect it anyway.:thumbsup:


Are there not commercial jobs where ground rings, CEE, and rods are not required by specs?


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Are there not commercial jobs where ground rings, CEE, and rods are not required by specs?


I would agree with rod not required by code. I sat in a state run grounding class and they asked us if we still put rods in when the CEE was used. Their comment was why?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

backstay said:


> I would agree with rod not required by code. I sat in a state run grounding class and they asked us if we still put rods in when the CEE was used. Their comment was why?


There is no question that the rods are not need to be compliant but that is not the question. Let me put it another way.

Without the rod is a #4 between the water pipe compliant? Is the #4 compliant with the rod as stated or is 1/0 needed?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Are there not commercial jobs where ground rings, CEE, and rods are not required by specs?



Of course there are, but those same specs will also tell us how to connect said electrodes and I have yet to see an EE want them daisy chained.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

BBQ said:


> Of course there are, but those same specs will also tell us how to connect said electrodes and I have yet to see an EE want them daisy chained.


So you don't have to answer the question-- that is fine.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> There is no question that the rods are not need to be compliant but that is not the question. Let me put it another way.
> 
> Without the rod is a #4 between the water pipe compliant? Is the #4 compliant with the rod as stated or is 1/0 needed?


Not compliant, the #4 to the water pipe is not the sole connection. This would be compliant if the CEE was only to the water and the rod was only to the water, not daisy chained.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

backstay said:


> Not compliant, the #4 to the water pipe is not the sole connection. This would be compliant if the CEE was only to the water and the rod was only to the water, not daisy chained.


The cmp members at our Raleigh meeting agree with you. However, in the same breath they okay daisy chained ground rods and that article says sole connector. I don't understand their discrepancy.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> So you don't have to answer the question-- that is fine.


I don't have to ...... but I want to ....... you do not have to read or respond to my posts.:thumbsup:


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> The cmp members at our Raleigh meeting agree with you. However, in the same breath they okay daisy chained ground rods and that article says sole connector. I don't understand their discrepancy.


It seems like they are trying to cover both sides of the discussion.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

mis-read the OP - bad reply


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Wouldn't it have to do with the order that you daisy chain the electrodes? If you went from the water pipe to the rod with #6 then to the CEC with #4 then I believe it would be a violation.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

mis read the OP


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> The cmp members at our Raleigh meeting agree with you. However, in the same breath they okay daisy chained ground rods and that article says sole connector. I don't understand their discrepancy.


I see it as allowing a daisy chain but 250.66 is telling me where the connections are one wire to an electrode then the conductor is required to be only so big.


----------



## electricalperson (Jan 11, 2008)

it sounds like this install is installed correctly. article 250.64F is there a catch to this question?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

As I stated the members of the code making panel state that this is an illegal install simply because of the sole connection. If I install the ground rod then a 1/0 is needed between the water pipe and the CEE.

Now these same guys agree with me and many of us here that in theory it is correct but that the words in the NEC do not support it. So yes it is non compliant but it would be a good install in terms of how the grounding electrode system should work.

Again why they allow 2 ground rods daisy chained is a mystery to me.


----------



## electricalperson (Jan 11, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> As I stated the members of the code making panel state that this is an illegal install simply because of the sole connection. If I install the ground rod then a 1/0 is needed between the water pipe and the CEE.
> 
> Now these same guys agree with me and many of us here that in theory it is correct but that the words in the NEC do not support it. So yes it is non compliant but it would be a good install in terms of how the grounding electrode system should work.
> 
> Again why they allow 2 ground rods daisy chained is a mystery to me.


i dont get how this is illegal. 250.53D1 says a water pipe needs a supplemental electrode of the type in 250.52A2 thru A8 a concrete encased electrode is one of them listed. from the water pipe a 1/0 conductor back to the panel, from the water pipe too a CCE a #4AWG per 250.66B and from the CCE too the rod a #6 per 250.66 and 250.53C


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Article 250.66(B) states where the conductor is the sole connection to the grounding electrode then a #4 is allowed. This is not the sole connection.

I think the intent of this is when you use a bonding jumper from the cee to say the building steel. Then the #4 may be too small but the code simply states-- sole connection.


----------



## electricalperson (Jan 11, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Article 250.66(B) states where the conductor is the sole connection to the grounding electrode then a #4 is allowed. This is not the sole connection.
> 
> I think the intent of this is when you use a bonding jumper from the cee to say the building steel. Then the #4 may be too small but the code simply states-- sole connection.


it also says that *portion* of the conductor that is the sole connection... 

to me that says we are allowed to run a single conductor and terminate it too the electrode sized either #6cu for a rod or #4cu for the CCE. it does not state we cant put a separate connector on the electrode and run a wire to the other electrode


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

electricalperson said:


> it also says that *portion* of the conductor that is the sole connection...
> 
> to me that says we are allowed to run a single conductor and terminate it too the electrode sized either #6cu for a rod or #4cu for the CCE. it does not state we cant put a separate connector on the electrode and run a wire to the other electrode


Well I see no problem but the CMP members don't agree with you or me on this.


----------



## electricalperson (Jan 11, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Well I see no problem but the CMP members don't agree with you or me on this.


maybe they should change the wording of the code then.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

electricalperson said:


> maybe they should change the wording of the code then.


Bingo.

Because no mater what the CMP members may say or write or believe the only thing that counts is what the words in the code section say.


----------



## electricalperson (Jan 11, 2008)

BBQ said:


> Bingo.
> 
> Because no mater what the CMP members may say or write or believe the only thing that counts is what the words in the code section say.


im still going to install it the way i explained before


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

electricalperson said:


> maybe they should change the wording of the code then.


That is exactly what the members told me. Write a proposal.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I have a 400 amp meter/panel combo. I install a 1/0 copper grounding electrode conductor to a water pipe that is considered an electrode. From the water pipe I take a #4 bonding jumper to the CEE (concrete encased electrode). From the CEE I take a #6 bonding jumper to a ground rod.
> 
> What do you think? Compliant or not?


I believe that your are OVER compliant, in the respect that you have done all that you need to do to give a "strike" the best way to completion.


----------



## electricalperson (Jan 11, 2008)

maybe we all can write a proposal and send it in


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

To be honest I have never done an install like this. In generally I run separate GEC's but I do daisy chain the ground rods.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

I know the handbook doesn't count for squat, but the illustration shows just the situation you are describing..


----------



## electrictim510 (Sep 9, 2008)

In California it would not fly, but I don't know about your local jurisdiction. They would want the #4 to go back to the panel, or have one continuous run from point to point.


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

InPhase277 said:


> I know the handbook doesn't count for squat, but the illustration shows just the situation you are describing..


The handbook does not show the reduction in size of the jumpers, and to top it off, one of the panel members that Dennis is speaking of was Jeff Sargent. 

Roger


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Roger said:


> The handbook does not show the reduction in size of the jumpers, and to top it off, one of the panel members that Dennis is speaking of was Jeff Sargent.
> 
> Roger


Thanks Roger, that is correct Jeff is one of the authors of the handbook. He says it is not compliant. I don't have a handbook but I take it Roger stated it correctly.


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Thanks Roger, that is correct Jeff is one of the authors of the handbook. He says it is not compliant. I don't have a handbook but I take it Roger stated it correctly.


You're welcome Dennis, I should have mentioned that Jeff is one of the NECH authors.

Roger


----------



## rnr electric (Jan 29, 2010)

i may misunderstand, but does 250.66 (A) then (B) which refers back to (A) cover this? (2002 NEC book too lazy to got truck to get 2011 book)


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

Roger said:


> The handbook does not show the reduction in size of the jumpers, and to top it off, one of the panel members that Dennis is speaking of was Jeff Sargent.
> 
> Roger


So it doesn't... I had to check for myself:laughing:

So basically, if you upsized each upstream conductor by an amount equivalent to the next smallest conductor, you would be compliant? So if you had #6 to the rod from the Ufer, then from the Ufer to the pipe would need to be #6 + #4 in size and from the pipe to the main #6 + #4 + 1/0. 

To me that would be in anticipation of a fault on every single electrode at the same time, which is exceedingly unlikely. In my opinion, the original situation is a legit and safe way to go, even if we can quibble over a specific word in the Code. Words don't make or break a compliant install.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

InPhase277 said:


> So it doesn't... I had to check for myself:laughing:
> 
> So basically, if you upsized each upstream conductor by an amount equivalent to the next smallest conductor, you would be compliant? So if you had #6 to the rod from the Ufer, then from the Ufer to the pipe would need to be #6 + #4 in size and from the pipe to the main #6 + #4 + 1/0.
> 
> To me that would be in anticipation of a fault on every single electrode at the same time, which is exceedingly unlikely. In my opinion, the original situation is a legit and safe way to go, even if we can quibble over a specific word in the Code. Words don't make or break a compliant install.


I do not agree with your analysis. As the question was posed then you would need a #6 to the rod from the ufer,as it is the sole connection, a 1/0 from the CEE to the water pipe and a 1/0 from the pipe to the meter/disco.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I have a 400 amp meter/panel combo. I install a 1/0 copper grounding electrode conductor to a water pipe that is considered an electrode. From the water pipe I take a #4 bonding jumper to the CEE (concrete encased electrode). From the CEE I take a #6 bonding jumper to a ground rod.
> 
> What do you think? Compliant or not?


The arrangement looks good to me, almost identical to the diagram in the handbook. The only difference there is that the ground rod is connected to building structural steel, not CEE but the daisy chaining is legal (not exactly my preference but definitely legal.) The main grounding electrode conductor is correct at 1/0 per table 250.66. #4 to the CEE and #6 to the ground rod look right too.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> The arrangement looks good to me, almost identical to the diagram in the handbook. The only difference there is that the ground rod is connected to building structural steel, not CEE but the daisy chaining is legal (not exactly my preference but definitely legal.) The main grounding electrode conductor is correct at 1/0 per table 250.66. #4 to the CEE and #6 to the ground rod look right too.


I would read thru some of the post esp. page 2 where Roger talks about the handbook. I don't have one, so....


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I would read thru some of the post esp. page 2 where Roger talks about the handbook. I don't have one, so....


I have the 2008 handbook. Exhibit 250.31 explains the text perfectly. I don't like it. I wish it was not code legal. Maybe the people who wrote it didn't mean what it seems to say rather clearly. Perhaps if they'd considered the implications of their words they would have written it differently. But it says what it says and there is no disputing it. 

What I don't like about is is that although there are redundant grounds, all of them depend on a single conductor between the panel and the water pipe, an unnecessary potential single point of failure. At one time and under some circumstances the pipe itself is considered sufficient. I also don't like that the #4 and #6 wires are not sized to carry the fully rated ground fault current, only the conductor between the water pipe and the panel ground is. 

It is the perogative of an engineer to exceed the requirements of the code and design more conservatively if he feels it is in his client's best interest. This is based on his expected judgment and experience. :laughing: 90.1(C) "This code is not intended as a design specification or instruction manual for untrained persons." :no: I would not design it this way but I cannot find fault with others who did. :whistling2: At least not one that would disqualify it as non code compliant, only not the best idea around.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> It is the perogative of an engineer to exceed the requirements of the code and design more conservatively if he feels it is in his client's best interest.



You bet, I mentioned this in post 13. :thumbsup:


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

BBQ said:


> You bet, I mentioned this in post 13. :thumbsup:


It is instructive that within a steel frame building, for the grounding of a transformer neutral, the separately derived source, a single wire to building steel is sufficient (at least it was unless they changed that on me too :laughing

I once installed a large telephone switch in a laboratory building and an audit came up with a finding that the ground wire should have been connected to a vertical steel member instead of a horizontal one. Evidently, the Bell System found after much expensive and very valuable research :whistling2: that there is less likelihood of damage to equipment if the ground wire is connected to a vertical member if the building is hit by lightning. It has something to do with the path the current will likely take within the structure as it travels to earth ground.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Again the question is not about a better way. I am quite confident that most of us feel individual gec's is a better job and definitely easier to comply with. The question is about what the code is saying giving this unusual situation. What is the intent and why must it be a sole connection? I don't have those answers. I just thought it was interesting as I would have thought it was compliant, as did many others.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

OK I've re-read the OP a couple times, read the replies as well.
Your install is Noncompliant based on 250.66.

Think of the term "sole connection" as "ONLY connection".
The use of #4 to the CEE and the use of #6 to a rod is an exception given to you in 250.66. As with most exceptions they are not a given but rather they require certain items to met in order to use them.


Article 250.66 tells us that the grounding electrode conductor shall not be less than given in table 250.66(A) except as permitted by 250.66 (A) through (C)

250.66(A) tells us that the grounding elctrode conductor to a rod can be a # 6 cu , provided it is the SOLE ( only) grounding electrode conductor attached to the rod

250.66 ( B) tells us that the grounding electrode conductor to the CEE can be a # 4 cu , provided it is the SOLE ( ONLY) grounding electrode conductor attached to the CEE

250.66 ( C) is for ground rings

Now seeing how you stated you went to the CEE with a #4 then from the CEE to the rod with a # 6. This means the #4 to the CEE is not the sole ( only) connection on the CEE.
Now that the CEE has 2 connections the exception allowing the #4 to the CEE is not in play any more. This means you must use a full size grounding electrode conductor sized according to table 250.66.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

manchestersparky said:


> Now seeing how you stated you went to the CEE with a #4 then from the CEE to the rod with a # 6. This means the #4 to the CEE is not the sole ( only) connection on the CEE.
> Now that the CEE has 2 connections the exception allowing the #4 to the CEE is not in play any more. This means you must use a full size grounding electrode conductor sized according to table 250.66.



Exactly. Now why can we jump 2 rods as it also states sole connection?


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

My best educated guess would be because they are both the same type of grounding electrode with the same required electrode conductor size.

In the commentary following 250.66, it states: The size of the grounding electrode conductor and bonding jumpers is dependent on which electrode the grounding electrode conductor connects to.


Rods --> # 6 or full size based on 250.66

CEE -- > #4 or ful size based on 250.66

Mix the two now it's full size to the first one hit


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

manchestersparky said:


> My best educated guess would be because they are both the same type of grounding electrode with the same required electrode conductor size.
> 
> In the commentary following 250.66, it states: The size of the grounding electrode conductor and bonding jumpers is dependent on which electrode the grounding electrode conductor connects to.
> 
> ...


But that is not what the code states.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> But that is not what the code states.


The code is an a-hole.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

NolaTigaBait said:


> The code is an a-hole.


Wow what an incredible useful response and thought provoking comment. :laughing:


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Wow what an incredible useful response and thought provoking comment. :laughing:


I thought it was...In my own world:jester:


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

I think the correct term is dildos.

_The code is dildos._


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

Dennis - I see what you are saying.
in the example you p[osted there is an issue because the connection is not the "sole connection" . 
Now looking into 250.53 for supplemental electrodes it also states "sole connection" . 
So I would assume that the CMP's either have misworded some things or we should be sizing the first leg using 250.66 based on the largest ungrounded service entrance conductor 

That could mean a 3/0 cu to the first rod and a 6 cu to the second.

This is based on reading 250.66 that tells us how to size the GEC.

Do I sense a Code Change Proposal coming ?????


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

manchestersparky said:


> That could mean a 3/0 cu to the first rod and a 6 cu to the second.
> 
> This is based on reading 250.66 that tells us how to size the GEC.
> 
> Do I sense a Code Change Proposal coming ?????


Well in the example it would be 1/0 not 3/0 and yes your senses are correct. Now I have to figure out how to word it.


----------



## gnxtc2 (Feb 21, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I have a 400 amp meter/panel combo. I install a 1/0 copper grounding electrode conductor to a water pipe that is considered an electrode. From the water pipe I take a #4 bonding jumper to the CEE (concrete encased electrode). From the CEE I take a #6 bonding jumper to a ground rod.
> 
> What do you think? Compliant or not?


I would not do it this way. Totally do not agree.

If some hack (say a plumber :whistling2 replaces the water pipe and never hooks back up the 1/0 GEC, you have nothing at the panel.

I would choke the 1/0 with the #4 going to the CEE and choke the #6 going to the rod.

Billy T.
[email protected]


----------



## Barjack (Mar 28, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Exactly. Now why can we jump 2 rods as it also states sole connection?


I may be implying intent here, but the reason we use 2 rods (or more) is because of the requirement of 250.56 that we have 25 or less ohms to ground for those electrodes. I would imply from here that the multiple ground rods connected together with #6 copper are looked at as a single electrode that achieves the 25 ohms to ground.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Barjack said:


> I may be implying intent here, but the reason we use 2 rods (or more) is because of the requirement of 250.56 that we have 25 or less ohms to ground for those electrodes. I would imply from here that the multiple ground rods connected together with #6 copper are looked at as a single electrode that achieves the 25 ohms to ground.


I am not sure but that may be the thinking but I don't see it as correct. The second rod is a supplemental electrode.


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Roger said:


> The handbook does not show the reduction in size of the jumpers, and to top it off, one of the panel members that Dennis is speaking of was Jeff Sargent.
> 
> Roger


Actually it does. There are several diagrams in the handbook and they are all similar but the one I cited is virtually identical to the installation as described except for one very minor detail. Even the wire gages are identical. If the installation violates the code, thenso does the diagram in the handbook. I wish it wasn't so but it is.


----------



## RePhase277 (Feb 5, 2008)

I would just run a solid copper bar, 36"x36" square, into the Earth until lava bubbled up around it and call it done.:thumbsup:


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> Actually it does. There are several diagrams in the handbook and they are all similar but the one I cited is virtually identical to the installation as described except for one very minor detail. Even the wire gages are identical. If the installation violates the code, thenso does the diagram in the handbook. I wish it wasn't so but it is.


Tell us which illustration you are refering to by it's exhibit number so that we can see what you're pointing out.

Exhibit 250.23 shows a #4 attached to the CEE but there is no rod in that exhibit.

Exhibit 250.31 does show a #4 and a #6 to the rod but, the difference is that in that exhibit and the topic at hand is that a #4 is the size of the GEC for the service itself which is only 200 amps.

Roger


----------



## Shorty Circuit (Jun 26, 2010)

Roger said:


> Tell us which illustration you are refering to by it's exhibit number so that we can see what you're pointing out.
> 
> Exhibit 250.23 shows a #4 attached to the CEE but there is no rod in that exhibit.
> 
> ...


I refer you to 250.66 and 250.66 (A) and 250.66 (B). Like it or not....they are legal and the service entrance size doesn't matter. It says so in those second two paragraphs A and B. Read it and weep! 
:laughing::whistling2:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I refer you to 250.66 and 250.66 (A) and 250.66 (B). Like it or not....they are legal and the service entrance size doesn't matter. It says so in those second two paragraphs A and B. Read it and weep!
> :laughing::whistling2:


I am not sure what is going on here but the service size does matter in the example I stated. If the service was 200 amps then you could run #4 to the CEE and a #6 to the rod. The problem is when you have a 400 amp service and a 1/0 is run to the water pipe and then a #4 to the rod, and #6 to the ground rod.

Now how stupid is that. If the ground rod was not in the picture the install is fine but add a rod that is not even required by code then the install becomes illegal. That is inane. 

Since the rod isn't required I should be allowed to run a #12 to the rod. Crazy...


----------



## Fibes (Feb 18, 2010)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I refer you to 250.66 and 250.66 (A) and 250.66 (B). Like it or not....they are legal and the service entrance size doesn't matter. It says so in those second two paragraphs A and B. Read it and weep!
> :laughing::whistling2:


I think the point is that in exhibit 250.31 the rod is jumpered from the building steel and the building steel requires a full size jumper because it would have to be a #4 if it were the lone GE for the 200 amp service conductors or a 1/0 for Dennis' 400 amp service conductors

I don't think 250.66 or 250.66(A) or (B) is being disputed.


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

Shorty Circuit said:


> I refer you to 250.66 and 250.66 (A) and 250.66 (B). Like it or not....they are legal and the service entrance size doesn't matter. It says so in those second two paragraphs A and B. Read it and weep!
> :laughing::whistling2:


Where do you get the idea or where are you interpreting that I am disagreeing with 250.66 (A) or (B)? And I guess I should ask, what do you think my stance is on Dennis's scenario?

In any case, the conductor allowances for the particular GE's covered in 250.66(A)and (B) is not the actual disscussion at hand, it's whether 250.66(A) can be connected to a #6 CU if it's coming from 250.66(B) that has been connected to a #4 CU if the service conductors are for 400 amps. 





Fibes said:


> I think the point is that in exhibit 250.31 the rod is jumpered from the building steel and the building steel requires a full size jumper because it would have to be a #4 if it were the lone GE for the 200 amp service conductors or a 1/0 for Dennis' 400 amp service conductors
> 
> I don't think 250.66 or 250.66(A) or (B) is being disputed.


Exactly.

Roger


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

Dennis Alwon said:


> If the ground rod was not in the picture the install is fine but add a rod that is not even required by code then the install becomes illegal. That is inane.
> 
> Since the rod isn't required I should be allowed to run a #12 to the rod. Crazy...


I have to disagree with you, it has nothing to do with the rod being required or not.
Once you install it you must install it as per the code.


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

manchestersparky said:


> I have to disagree with you, it has nothing to do with the rod being required or not.
> Once you install it you must install it as per the code.


I understand what you are saying but I don't think the NEC is that clear.

What if I call the extra rod an auxiliary electrode?



> *250.54 Auxiliary Grounding Electrodes.* One or more
> grounding electrodes shall be permitted to be connected to
> the equipment grounding conductors specified in 250.118
> and shall not be required to comply with the electrode
> ...


----------

