# EMT as ground



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

I was on an inspector forum and one inspector asked the forum if an electrician was in violation because he had not ran a ground in with his hot and neutral in a EMT conduit leaving the panel.no one asked what kind of KO it left through or if it had a bonding bushing. . can EMT be the ground?all replies said the EMT was acceptable for grounding


----------



## Chrisibew440 (Sep 13, 2013)

zen said:


> I was on an inspector forum and one inspector asked the forum if an electrician was in violation because he had not ran a ground in with his hot and neutral in a EMT conduit leaving the panel.no one asked what kind of KO it left through or if it had a bonding bushing. . can EMT be the ground?


 absolutely, all day everyday


----------



## Chrisibew440 (Sep 13, 2013)

2008 nec 358.60


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

zen said:


> I was on an inspector forum and one inspector asked the forum if an electrician was in violation because he had not ran a ground in with his hot and neutral in a EMT conduit leaving the panel.no one asked what kind of KO it left through or if it had a bonding bushing. . can EMT be the ground?


250.120 Equipment Grounding Conductor Installation. An equipment grounding conductor shall be installed in accordance with 250.120(A), (B), and (C).
(A) Raceway, Cable Trays, Cable Armor, Cablebus, or Cable Sheaths. Where it consists of a raceway, cable tray, cable armor, cablebus framework, or cable sheath or where it is a wire within a raceway or cable, it shall be installed in accordance with the applicable provisions in this Code using fittings for joints and terminations approved for use with the type raceway or cable used. All connections, joints, and fittings shall be made tight using suitable tools.
Informational Note:  See the UL guide information on FHIT systems for equipment grounding conductors installed in a raceway that are part of an electrical circuit protective system or a fire-rated cable listed to maintain circuit integrity.


----------



## Black Dog (Oct 16, 2011)

Chrisibew440 said:


> 2008 nec 358.60


2014 as well.

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


----------



## Chrisibew440 (Sep 13, 2013)

Black Dog said:


> 2014 as well.
> 
> 358.60 Grounding. EMT shall be permitted as an equipment grounding conductor.


 thanks, im trying to convince myself to get up and buy one.


----------



## AllWIRES (Apr 10, 2014)

Chrisibew440 said:


> thanks, im trying to convince myself to get up and buy one.


An equipment grounding conductor?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

It causes me alarm to read that an inspector would say that. Then again there are local amendments in places that deviate from the NEC in large degree so maybe that is what he is thinking about.


----------



## Chrisibew440 (Sep 13, 2013)

macmikeman said:


> It causes me alarm to read that an inspector would say that. Then again there are local amendments in places that deviate from the NEC in large degree so maybe that is what he is thinking about.


 
well its nothing new that we think inspectors are ill equipped for the job. it should be a mandatory 15 year background as an electrician to be an inspector. i think i can count 3 that ive known that know there stuff.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Chrisibew440 said:


> thanks, im trying to convince myself to get up and buy one.


Buy some EMT to use as EGC?













Or buy a codebook? :blink:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Be careful just because the nec says it is does not mean you always can. For instance if the electrical engineer specs on plans that an equipment grounding conductor must be used then you must follow the accepted plan.


----------



## Chrisibew440 (Sep 13, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Buy some EMT to use as EGC?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 so your telling me i cant ground a code book?


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Be careful just because the nec says it is does not mean you always can. For instance if the electrical engineer specs on plans that an equipment grounding conductor must be used then you must follow the accepted plan.


Perhaps, but can a municipal electrical inspector police the electrician's compliance with the contract drawings and specifications? I don't think so.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

IslandGuy said:


> Perhaps, but can a municipal electrical inspector police the electrician's compliance with the contract drawings and specifications? I don't think so.


Absolutely they can. If the plans have gone thru the inspections dept and have been accepted then they are accepted as written. Unless the engineer asks for the change to be made you must install the equipment grounding conductor.


----------



## jigs-n-fixtures (Jan 31, 2013)

IslandGuy said:


> Perhaps, but can a municipal electrical inspector police the electrician's compliance with the contract drawings and specifications? I don't think so.


Legally the inspector is required to assure the compliance with the approved plans and specifications. And the contractor is obligated to construct to them. 

In reality, if the contractor does not point out variances from the code in the plans and specs to the inspector, most of them are too over tasked to catch the requirements that vary from code minimums. 

The scary part is even if the inspector misses a call out for most of the job and catches it when you are nearly buttoned up and off the job, they can make you go back and comply. 

In most states the Designer who sealed the document is responsible for assuring compliance.


----------



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

Thanks, I thought I had researched this before. Obviously I'm mistaken, I do remember plenty of times I looked up and the cunduits weren't connected anymore. So i started putting the sized ground I need in the conduit..guess I need to start making payments to my boss for all the ground wire I ve wasted.


----------



## Chrisibew440 (Sep 13, 2013)

zen said:


> Thanks, I thought I had researched this before. Obviously I'm mistaken, I do remember plenty of times I looked up and the cunduits weren't connected anymore. So i started putting the sized ground I need in the conduit..guess I need to start making payments to my boss for all the ground wire I ve wasted.


its not a waist at all, more security. the company i work for, we dont pull a ground unless speced, its kind of sketchey because your relying on everyone tightening there fittings which some people have a hard time doing.so the suplementary bond wire is a good thing.


----------



## dcb_minded (May 19, 2014)

I had an inspector fail me once because he didn't have a screwdriver to remove the panel cover... 

Sent from my SGH-T599 using Tapatalk


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

dcb_minded said:


> I had an inspector fail me once because he didn't have a screwdriver to remove the panel cover... Sent from my SGH-T599 using Tapatalk


Haha wow


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

dcb_minded said:


> I had an inspector fail me once because he didn't have a screwdriver to remove the panel cover...
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T599 using Tapatalk


had one a week ago turn us down because there wasnt a ladder on site so he could verify clearances


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

When I had inspections all he'd do is ask how I bonded the transformers and requested to see the MBJ in the service gear. Any more than that and he's being nosy


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Chrisibew440 said:


> so your telling me i cant ground a code book?


You most certainly can. But it's not required by the NEC.

And if you had a copy of the NEC you'd be able to look it up.


----------



## Chrisibew440 (Sep 13, 2013)

480sparky said:


> You most certainly can. But it's not required by the NEC.
> 
> And if you had a copy of the NEC you'd be able to look it up.


I did and it says you must corner ground for correct computation.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Chrisibew440 said:


> I did and it says you must corner ground for correct computation.


Which corner? :whistling2::laughing:


----------



## Chrisibew440 (Sep 13, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Which corner? :whistling2::laughing:


The middle one of course.


----------



## Tigerloose (Dec 5, 2010)

dcb_minded said:


> I had an inspector fail me once because he didn't have a screwdriver to remove the panel cover...
> 
> Sent from my SGH-T599 using Tapatalk


Some inspectors just don't get it. He should have failed the work because you weren't there to open the panel.


----------



## Tigerloose (Dec 5, 2010)

drspec said:


> had one a week ago turn us down because there wasnt a ladder on site so he could verify clearances


Did you show him how to fly, so it won't happen again?


----------



## drspec (Sep 29, 2012)

Tigerloose said:


> Did you show him how to fly, so it won't happen again?


 ever heard of using a tape measure? or is a tool like that too complex for inspectors?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Absolutely they can. If the plans have gone thru the inspections dept and have been accepted then they are accepted as written. Unless the engineer asks for the change to be made you must install the equipment grounding conductor.


Unless the local adopted electrical code specifies compliance with the contract documents, the inspector cannot inspect to the plans and specifications. He or she can only inspect to the legally adopted code rules. In some cases the adopted codes do specify compliance with the plans and specs as well as the actual code, in other cases the adopted codes do not reference the plans and specs and the inspector cannot enforce those plans and specs...he can only enforce the law...that is the code rules that have been legally adopted.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Unless the local adopted electrical code specifies compliance with the contract documents, the inspector cannot inspect to the plans and specifications. He or she can only inspect to the legally adopted code rules. In some cases the adopted codes do specify compliance with the plans and specs as well as the actual code, in other cases the adopted codes do not reference the plans and specs and the inspector cannot enforce those plans and specs...he can only enforce the law...that is the code rules that have been legally adopted.


If the plans are accepted then you must wire to the specs that were accepted as a part of the plan. I believe that is the case here and I thought it was everywhere. I believe Pete M. our mod is an inspector and I believe he said the same but I may be incorrect


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Unless the local adopted electrical code specifies compliance with the contract documents, the inspector cannot inspect to the plans and specifications. He or she can only inspect to the legally adopted code rules. In some cases the adopted codes do specify compliance with the plans and specs as well as the actual code, in other cases the adopted codes do not reference the plans and specs and the inspector cannot enforce those plans and specs...he can only enforce the law...that is the code rules that have been legally adopted.





Dennis Alwon said:


> If the plans are accepted then you must wire to the specs that were accepted as a part of the plan. I believe that is the case here and I thought it was everywhere. I believe Pete M. our mod is an inspector and I believe he said the same but I may be incorrect


State to state laws vary. I say your both wrong (Respectfully though..)
In some places Don is correct, and in some places Dennis is.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

Here the inspection is for code compliance and nothing more.


----------



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

So now that im gonna use emt for my ground. If a 1/2 emt left the panel through a hole I drill and enters a box where there is a 3/4 or larger ko that was still there acentric or concentric. Do I need a 1/2 in bonding bushing

learning to learn


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

zen said:


> So now that im gonna use emt for my ground. If a 1/2 emt left the panel through a hole I drill and enters a box where there is a 3/4 or larger ko that was still there acentric or concentric. Do I need a 1/2 in bonding bushing
> 
> learning to learn


Over 250 volts to ground you do.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

macmikeman said:


> Over 250 volts to ground you do.


you may want to check out the UL Whitebook. 

Product Category Title: Metallic Outlet Boxes
Product Category Code: QCIT

From the 2011 UL Whitebook:

_Concentric and Eccentric Knockouts_
_All boxes with concentric or eccentric knockouts have been investigated for bonding and are suitable for bonding without any additional bonding means around concentric (and eccentric) knockouts where used in circuits above or below 250 V ,and may be marked as such._

If anyone has a newer whitebook and it staes something different please post it. I only have the 2011 with me in my car


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> If the plans are accepted then you must wire to the specs that were accepted as a part of the plan. I believe that is the case here and I thought it was everywhere. I believe Pete M. our mod is an inspector and I believe he said the same but I may be incorrect


At least that's how it is in Ohio. If the specs are accepted as part of the approved construction documents they would have to be followed even if they required more than the NEC.

Pete


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

manchestersparky said:


> you may want to check out the UL Whitebook.
> 
> Product Category Title: Metallic Outlet Boxes
> Product Category Code: QCIT
> ...



Is bonding the same as grounding?


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Pete m. said:


> At least that's how it is in Ohio. If the specs are accepted as part of the approved construction documents they would have to be followed even if they required more than the NEC.
> 
> Pete


Does the state statue say that, or is that just how it is done there?

It is my opinion that the government has no business enforcing private contract documents, (the plans and specs). The job of the government is to enforce the adopted safety rules,(the adopted codes). 
There is no reason for taxpayer dollars to be used to enforce private contracts. If the owner wants the job inspected to the plans and specs than the owner needs to hire someone to do that.


----------



## jigs-n-fixtures (Jan 31, 2013)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Does the state statue say that, or is that just how it is done there? It is my opinion that the government has no business enforcing private contract documents, (the plans and specs). The job of the government is to enforce the adopted safety rules,(the adopted codes). There is no reason for taxpayer dollars to be used to enforce private contracts. If the owner wants the job inspected to the plans and specs than the owner needs to hire someone to do that.


By default the wording in the codes is to defer to specific design requirements, as prepared by a design professional. The adopting entities can modify the code during the adoption process and change that, but normally don't. 

The only justification for adopting the codes, and the licensing design and construction professionals is protection of public safety, and property. 

Assuring conformance with design documents that exceed the code requirements furthers the goal of protecting safety and property, and thus is the governments province. Designers don't vary from code unless there is a real reason to do so. (It costs more money: clients don't like that.)

As contractors we don't know if the AHJ demanded the provisions that exceed the code as part of the review process because there are special circumstances that warrant exceeding code.


----------



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

Id say bonding is the same as grounding unless ur still trying to ground that code book which would be called binding. 

learning to learn


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

jigs-n-fixtures said:


> By default the wording in the codes is to defer to specific design requirements, as prepared by a design professional. ...


That is very much true in other codes that are "performance" codes, but the NEC is a "prescriptive" code, not a "performance" code

Please cite an NEC section that says it defers to the design requirements.

If the adopting authority wants things that they think are required for public heath and safety and that are not in the codes that they are adopting, then the adopting authority needs to amend the code, at the time of adoption, to make it say what they want it to say. 

It will forever remain my opinion that the adopting authority has no business enforcing anything other than the legally adopted codes. The enforcement of the design documents is a private matter between the owner and the contractor. (note this comment only applies to prescriptive codes like that NEC)


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> That is very much true in other codes that are "performance" codes, but the NEC is a "prescriptive" code, not a "performance" code
> 
> Please cite an NEC section that says it defers to the design requirements.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree with you more Don. I wish the job specs weren't part of the approval to build.

At least here in Ohio if specs are brought in with the "blueprints" they become part of the plan approval (which is a license to build). The contractor or owner is permitted to build per the approved construction documents which, in some cases, also include job specs.

This all comes from the administrative section of the Ohio Building Code.

Pete


----------



## honeydorick (Apr 24, 2013)

Even though the NEC permits EMT as a bonding ground ,Ive allways pulled a separate ground through my EMT,just incase.As a residential electrician,it dosnt add that much more to job cost and I sleep better at night,putting safety first.In commercial applications it probably adds to much to the job cost.Ultimatly safety is our responsibility.What will you do ? I know what I will do.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

honeydorick said:


> Even though the NEC permits EMT as a bonding ground ,.........



What is a '_bonding ground_'? :blink:

The NEC permits EMT to be used as an _equipment grounding conductor_. (250.118)


----------



## honeydorick (Apr 24, 2013)

*Bonding ground*

Hey sparky,I meant the same thing,Equipment Grounding conductor,sorry for the bad use of terms.The hole purpose is to make sure its all tied together all the way back to the panel,or in my terms,bonded together so any fault or short to equipment ,enclosures or raceways can be safely cleared by the breaker,to prevent the shock hazard.Thanks for the terminology correction.


----------



## Swordsman (Jun 14, 2014)

After I watched (literally watched) a 125A feeder dead short with the 1-1/4" EMT raceway as the only ground I'll never go without a grounding conductor on any raceway I install. Every coupling and connector in the run blew fire and sparks.

Two of the worst service calls I've ever been on were directly traceable back to an inadequate ground system. Code compliant but totally inadequate.

The absolute worst service call was a non compliant grounding issue. A 120V two wire circuit with a non polarized receptacle. The trailer power cord was plugged in upside down resulting in reverse polarity. The trailer load center had the neutral bonded to the trailer frame. A seven year old child paid for that one with her life when she came in contact with a steel natural gas line and the trailer metal skin.

Good grounding is not just an inconvenient extra cost on a job. It can be life or death.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

Swordsman said:


> After I watched (literally watched) a 125A feeder dead short with the 1-1/4" EMT raceway as the only ground I'll never go without a grounding conductor on any raceway I install. Every coupling and connector in the run blew fire and sparks.
> 
> Two of the worst service calls I've ever been on were directly traceable back to an inadequate ground system. Code compliant but totally inadequate.
> 
> ...



They should not let the Rio swimmers get near to emt. They are bad enough when running romex, probably should be restricted to drywall. Or better yet, floor tile. Its for the safety of the children.


----------



## theJcK (Aug 7, 2013)

i totally agree. years ago (longer than i like to admit) we would pull two wire ckts all day long. i grumbled and hopped back then mostly because i was taught two things in trade school that i still hold on til this day.. we run EGCs and dont pull anything less than #12! of course things change and now im coming from a more knowledgable perspective, but i would rather have a parallel path of return and pipe doesnt count IMHO. a dollar versus someones life isnt worth it. more so i believe that three wire ckts afford more protection even tho some dangers persist.


----------



## CFL (Jan 28, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> They should not let the Rio swimmers get near to emt. They are bad enough when running romex, probably should be restricted to drywall. Or better yet, floor tile. Its for the safety of the children.


I don't care if you're playing or not, I agree. I have yet to meet one of those people that will do quality work.

I can say this because I grew up in Mexico, asi que no me puedes llamar racista.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Swordsman said:


> After I watched (literally watched) a 125A feeder dead short with the 1-1/4" EMT raceway as the only ground I'll never go without a grounding conductor on any raceway I install. Every coupling and connector in the run blew fire and sparks.........


Ever consider it may have been a _breaker_ issue?


----------

