# Wrapping around ground screw



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

250.148.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

RobTownfold64 said:


> I've looked, but I can't find anything. Is there anything saying you can't take one of the EGC's entering a box, strip a bit of the insulation about halfway down the conductor, and then wrap that around a ground screw? I've always done it that way instead of using a separate ground tail. I usually use the conductor coming from the homerun or feed. IMO it's fast, cheap, less conductors in the ground splice, and a solid ground.
> 
> However, I've been told by multiple EC's in the area that it will fail inspection.


It is so easy to do what you know to be correct, why go for a shortcut.


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

i have been doing that for years in NJ and PA and never had a problem


----------



## RobTownfold64 (Mar 17, 2011)

Double tap.


----------



## RobTownfold64 (Mar 17, 2011)

480sparky said:


> 110.3(B)


I'm not sure what listing I would be breaking?


RIVETER said:


> It is so easy to do what you know to be correct, why go for a shortcut.


In my opinion, it's not a shortcut, just a different way to do it. IMO a better way.

When you wire up typical 2X4 drop in lights, you use a ground tail on the window plate? You don't strip one of the grounding conductors by the base and wrap it around the screw?


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

RobTownfold64 said:


> I've looked, but I can't find anything. Is there anything saying you can't take one of the EGC's entering a box, strip a bit of the insulation about halfway down the conductor, and then wrap that around a ground screw? I've always done it that way instead of using a separate ground tail. I usually use the conductor coming from the homerun or feed. IMO it's fast, cheap, less conductors in the ground splice, and a solid ground.
> 
> However, I've been told by multiple EC's in the area that it will fail inspection.


This is how I was taught to do it, and this is how I do it. Never been called on it and for the very reasons you stated find it to be more efficient. It doesn't violate 250.148 and as long as there's 6" of free conductor available, you're golden.



RIVETER said:


> It is so easy to do what you know to be correct, why go for a shortcut.


It's faster, cheaper and less conductors in the splice.

Here's 250.148 from the '08 for good measure. Maybe I missed something:


```
[SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][LEFT][B]250.148 Continuity and Attachment of Equipment[/B]
[B]Grounding Conductors to Boxes. [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]Where circuit conductors
[B]are spliced within a box, or terminated on equipment[/B]
[B]within or supported by a box, any equipment grounding conductor([/B]
[B]s) associated with those circuit conductors shall be connected[/B]
[B]within the box or to the box with devices suitable for[/B]
[B]the use in accordance with 250.148(A) through (E).[/B][/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][I][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][LEFT][B]Exception: The equipment grounding conductor permitted[/B]
[B]in 250.146(D) shall not be required to be connected to the[/B]
[B]other equipment grounding conductors or to the box.[/B][/LEFT]
[/I][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][LEFT][B](A) Connections. [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]Connections and splices shall be made
[B]in accordance with 110.14(B) except that insulation shall[/B]
[B]not be required.[/B][/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][LEFT][B](B) Grounding Continuity. [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]The arrangement of grounding
[B]connections shall be such that the disconnection or the[/B]
[B]removal of a receptacle, luminaire, or other device fed from[/B]
[B]the box does not interfere with or interrupt the grounding[/B]
[B]continuity.[/B][/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][LEFT][B](C) Metal Boxes. [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]A connection shall be made between the
[B]one or more equipment grounding conductors and a metal[/B]
[B]box by means of a grounding screw that shall be used for[/B]
[B]no other purpose, equipment listed for grounding, or a[/B][/LEFT]
[B]listed grounding device.[/B]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][LEFT](D) Nonmetallic Boxes. [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]One or more equipment grounding
conductors brought into a nonmetallic outlet box shall
be arranged such that a connection can be made to any
fitting or device in that box requiring grounding.[/LEFT]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][B][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][LEFT](E) Solder. [/B][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=2]Connections depending solely on solder shall[/LEFT]
not be used.
[LEFT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]
```
[/LEFT]


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

RobTownfold64 said:


> I'm not sure what listing I would be breaking?
> 
> In my opinion, it's not a shortcut, just a different way to do it. IMO a better way.
> 
> When you wire up typical 2X4 drop in lights, you use a ground tail on the window plate? You don't strip one of the grounding conductors by the base and wrap it around the screw?


Well, I know that you want to do it right but you have to remember that you asked us what we thought. If you ever have to ask someone else if you did the right thing...you doubted yourself.


----------



## RobTownfold64 (Mar 17, 2011)

RIVETER said:


> Well, I know that you want to do it right but you have to remember that you asked us what we thought. If you ever have to ask someone else if you did the right thing...you doubted yourself.


I only asked if it was a violation. There is no need for the philosophical crap here.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

RobTownfold64 said:


> I only asked if it was a violation. There is no need for the philosophical crap here.


So the philosophy is that the installation is compliant.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Just don't wrap 360° around the screw. A lot of guys do that, and the screw crushes the conductor where it crosses itself, which weakens it. A lot of the time when I've had a ground wire break off at the screw, that was why.

Other than that, I see no problem with it.

-John


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

RobTownfold64 said:


> I only asked if it was a violation. There is no need for the philosophical crap here.


 Maybe I was slightly philosophical there, but the many times that I did what you are talking about, if they caused me to wish that "Crap, I wish that those seven strands stayed there", I should have taken the extra time. I guess it's a personal choice. No offense intended.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

RobTownfold64 said:


> I only asked if it was a violation. There is no need for the philosophical crap here.


250.148(b) applies

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## RobTownfold64 (Mar 17, 2011)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> 250.148(b) applies
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


I don't see it as a violation of 250.148(B)


(B) Grounding Continuity.
The arrangement of grounding
connections shall be such that the disconnection or the
removal of a receptacle, luminaire, or other device fed from
the box does not interfere with or interrupt the grounding
continuity.


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

RobTownfold64 said:


> I don't see it as a violation of 250.148(B)
> 
> (B) Grounding Continuity.
> The arrangement of grounding
> ...


There's your answe it's not a violation

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

Big John said:


> Just don't wrap 360° around the screw. A lot of guys do that, and the screw crushes the conductor where it crosses itself, which weakens it. A lot of the time when I've had a ground wire break off at the screw, that was why.
> 
> Other than that, I see no problem with it.
> 
> -John


I drew out an illustration for whomever is having a hard time visualizing it.


----------



## Mr Rewire (Jan 15, 2011)

i think this comes from inspectors misreading the comentary in the handbook dealing wit 110.14


----------



## eutecticalloy (Dec 12, 2010)

If anything while disconnecting the wire nut holding the grounds together and let's say adding another to it, your box would still have a solid ground connection. I see no violation here and was taught this way by my instructor/electrical inspector in vocational school.


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

RobTownfold64 said:


> less conductors in the ground splice, and a solid ground.
> 
> However, I've been *told by multiple EC's in the area that it will fail inspection*.


So the reality of the whole issue may be that it is a local AHJ thing? I live in a "bit over the top grounding area", so I go with the flow (it doesn't hurt anything), everyone else has to have a labor number attached to that piece of work too. 

As long as the EMT can meet 250.118, and 250.97, and the boxes with rings are rated, or "clean" all the way back to the ocpd thinking should be good to go. 

NEC Code covers the legal minimum, AHJ's have other codes to draw their decisions on . If you get called on it, ask for an article, and section, number. Do it with honey! If you tick the inspector off, you may win the battle, but lose the war. If they want, they can be really ugly if they so desire. Hopefully, you are dealing with professional inspectors in your area, and they don't care who you are - just is it legal, or not.

Edit - Ground total count is only one 314.16. Doesn't mean it isn't a hassle, just saying it only counts as one...


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

There is no violation what so ever. Most inspectors would prefer that you use the EGC from the H/R to the first box and so forth that you wrap around the screw just like our illustration shows then. Leave a long enough tail for it to terminate into the device and, also if it's a multiple gang box you can tail off. This is code compliant. The continuity of the ground is continued and even if one device is removed it doesn't effect the other devices.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## cabletie (Feb 12, 2011)

once in 26 years I had one inspector tell me that he did not want to see it that way. He told me that when he was inspecting the underground as a heads up. I did it his way for the coarse of the job and that is it. I will do it either way, whatever is eaiser and does not violate the code. somewhere I thought it says 2/3 around the screw. His thing was that an over tightened screw could break the wire and you would lose the ground the rest of the way. He actualy was bending the wire back and forth to get it to break off in a box i was making up for a temporary gfi. I was thinking to myself "are you f#!king kidding me".


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

Salvatoreg02 said:


> 250.148(b) applies
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


How i do not see it...



> 250.148
> 
> *(B) Grounding Continuity. *
> ​​The arrangement of grounding​
> ...


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

I do it both ways. Sometimes I use a ground entering the box and sometimes I use the lazy method.


----------



## electricalperson (Jan 11, 2008)

i do it that way with romex and old work boxes. MC i just make a pigtail off of the EGC splice. if we used MCAP we wouldnt have to worry about this


----------



## BIGRED (Jan 22, 2007)

electricalwiz said:


> i have been doing that for years in NJ and PA and never had a problem


Yo Wiz, where you from in PA?


----------



## Salvatoreg02 (Feb 26, 2011)

HARRY304E said:


> How i do not see it...


The wiring method of wrapping the wire around the screw is not stated. But it states " continuity shall not be lost while removing the device" so by wrapping is okay and hit device or not, by using self grounding device. Metal boxes I just bond the box. Plastic pigtail and ground the device.

Sent from my iPhone using ET Forum


----------



## electricalwiz (Mar 12, 2011)

BIGRED said:


> Yo Wiz, where you from in PA?


lower bucks county


----------



## electures (Oct 23, 2008)

RobTownfold64 said:


> I've looked, but I can't find anything. Is there anything saying you can't take one of the EGC's entering a box, strip a bit of the insulation about halfway down the conductor, and then wrap that around a ground screw? I've always done it that way instead of using a separate ground tail. I usually use the conductor coming from the homerun or feed. IMO it's fast, cheap, less conductors in the ground splice, and a solid ground.
> 
> However, I've been told by multiple EC's in the area that it will fail inspection.


It's called a "patch" and not a violation.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

480sparky said:


> 250.148.



Always an asshole.
I was just staring to like you.


----------



## ColoradoMaster3768 (Jan 16, 2010)

cabletie said:


> once in 26 years I had one inspector tell me that he did not want to see it that way. He told me that when he was inspecting the underground as a heads up. I did it his way for the coarse of the job and that is it. I will do it either way, whatever is eaiser and does not violate the code. somewhere I thought it says 2/3 around the screw. His thing was that an over tightened screw could break the wire and you would lose the ground the rest of the way. He actualy was bending the wire back and forth to get it to break off in a box i was making up for a temporary gfi. I was thinking to myself "are you f#!king kidding me".


 
The "2/3s thing" is a trade practice, not a _Code_ requirement. You will find it in Chapter 2 of your American Electricians' Handbook.

Also, inspectors are verifiers of information; they should not be putting their hands on your work. And, don't be afraid to ask for a _Code _cite. It could well be that they have a local prohibition against trade practices considered common and acceptable elsewhere. Perhaps they've experienced problems with those types of connections in the past. Nevertheless, they should not be manipulating your work themselves, unless they want to risk owning it.


----------



## IBEW191 (Apr 4, 2011)

when i was in class our instructor asked us how many of us use forked connectors to connect our EGC. 90% of the class raised thare hand, he said in an inspectors monthly mailing it said that thay are not listed for that use so its a violation. Iv never hear of anyone being dinged for it, and still use them today, cause they are better then wraping stranded under a ground skrew in my opnion.


----------



## oliquir (Jan 13, 2011)

IBEW191 said:


> when i was in class our instructor asked us how many of us use forked connectors to connect our EGC. 90% of the class raised thare hand, he said in an inspectors monthly mailing it said that thay are not listed for that use so its a violation. Iv never hear of anyone being dinged for it, and still use them today, cause they are better then wraping stranded under a ground skrew in my opnion.


if fork are not listed for that they are listed for what :laughing:
and they make a better connection when using stranded wire


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

IBEW191 said:


> when i was in class our instructor asked us how many of us use forked connectors to connect our EGC. 90% of the class raised thare hand, he said in an inspectors monthly mailing it said that thay are not listed for that use so its a violation. Iv never hear of anyone being dinged for it, and still use them today, cause they are better then wraping stranded under a ground skrew in my opnion.


I'd have some serious reservations about that kind of noise...A grounding pigtail that is listed obviously has millions of dollars getting it to market for us to get at $0.25 each. Is that instructors name "J.R. Random" when it comes to the "wizz quiz" game?:laughing:


----------

