OK, we all know that the EC has to install that new intersystem ground block as per 250.94. Here comes the question,

Is the EC required to run a grounding conductor from this ground block to the Telco /CATV equipment? Or is the EC just required to install that ground block and then have the Telco/CATV people come back to install their own grounding conductor?

I think the Telco/Cable/Satt contractor should be running their own ground to your block. (it was the ground rod(s) back in the olden days)
In most cases with cable, their box is sealed anyway. In my experience they are not very diligent when it comes to grounding so somebody does need to follow up and inspect this. Hopefully it has been done before the final electrical inspection but that may not happen. I used to warn homeowners of the problem and have them hold the installer's feet to the fire when they get their cable or phone installed. I offered to get in the middle if it came to it but I am guessing my card with a short note on the back was all it took because I never got a call back.
My experience with lightning damage in the computer biz made me a fanatic about good grounding practices.

Harold:
Now, another can of worms?

Service upgrades, the EC's have for the most part connected the existing to the block. New resi work has been real quiet, so I can't voice anything yet.

Again, it would be nice if a FTO popped up for this, so we are all on the same page.

John,

An EC who is a friend of mine said he failed a job because of that reason. So now he asks,"Is it my responsibility to connect the Telco grounding conductor? If so what code section does that fall under?"

Harold:
IMHO, IF the telco, etc. was bonded prior to a service upgrade I would say the EC should re-connect the bond. I'll look for an article ASAP, as I have had no debates re: this.

That said, on a new job, the telco, etc. installers are responsible. (period)
Who checks them?? I can't say I do! More research required.

Reminds me of the pipe clamp on the PVC service conduit by a 'cable guy'!

If it is an existing building and the telco or CATV are already properly grounded and bonded, then 250.94 exception doesn't require the intersystem bonding termination to be installed, however you can install one at the service for other additional buildings if needed.
It's a rare event that it's done correctly with the current requirements for size, length and connection location, etc, especially in older buildings, but sometimes you do see it.
I guess they figure that if these systems are already properly bonded, then leave well enough alone.

I've noticed that around here, all of the telco ground wires have yellow tags on them at the point of connection that say "Warning, if this clamp or wire is loose or removed contact the telephone company repair service."
This seems to indicate that they want ultimate responsibility of the grounding and bonding for their systems.

KJay,


I agree that if the Telco system was bonded when the EC gets there, then after a service change, the EC should re hook up the Telco/CATV grounding conductor.

The question comes from the fact that the Telco equipment was on one side of the house (And on it's own separate grounding system) and the service replacement is on the other side of the house. Should the EC fail the inspection because the TELCO guy didn't ground his system from the very start of the building project?

I started out in this trade as a Burg/Fire alarm installer. We always had to ground our systems to the nearest cold water pipe. If it wasn't grounded properly,our system wouldn't work correctly.

IMO, no since 250.94 only requires the means of intersystem bonding termination be installed near the service equipment or grounding electrode conductor for the purpose of intersystem bonding, not that the systems actually be connected to it.
Because each service provider has their own internal standards for grounding and bonding of their systems and equipment, which may differ substantially from the minimum requirements of the NEC, if the EC changes or alters it and doesn’t do it to the provider companies standard, he may be liable in the event of damage to the system or equipment and possibly even the building.
I feel that the service providers should be notified by the property owner and/or the EC that the grounding and bonding for their systems may need to be updated after a service change is completed.

Kjay:
We may be talking about two or more different scenarios here. For a new structure, no the EC is not responsible to do the bonding, only to install the 250.94 block.

On service changes reconnecting the LV bonding to the upgraded grounding and bonding system, for any existing data/comm/sat etc. This has been a 'standard' practice for the most part by the EC's. IMHO, the liability issue would be greater if the bonds were not re-connected after a service change.

just an aside, the last code update i took had one state inspector flogging the troops, errhm....eductaing us to the only grounding block on the market being via only ONE manufacturer.

so.....does that mean they are listed (or maybe i should say warranteed?) to be installed on all meters?

~S~

Existing ground/bond at service location- yes Reconnect if the EC disconnected it for the work.
However in the example,I don't feel the EC should be required to install a ground for the equipment t the other end of the building. for reasons stated by KJay. Notify,Yes.

As far as new- install the block.

Sparky:
The PP info I used/use for CEU & Vo-tech is from 1 mfg, but it also has comparison items by other mfg within the presentation.

Our POCO does not allow the unit that attaches to the meter pan.

Leland:
No, I do not expect any sparky to run any bond/grd only to reconnect, and install the block on new work.

In my Commercial practice we've ALWAYS been required to run a bonding conductor over to the telco board which by contract we also installed. Said board would ALWAYS be a hefty 4x8 sheet of plywood treated for fire resistance -- sometimes plain, sometimes painted ( by the GC/painting contractor ) at least 5/8" thick.

The Telco tech was ALWAYS very good at grounding at their Point Of Entry.

Providing raceways all over for the LV boys and pulling in phone pairs for the elevator contractor... all in a job.

------


Plainly, Residential sequencing is totally different. It sounds like you're long gone before the LV crowd shows up.

we usually have the service done before the telco ever mounts their box.

Sparky,

I have seen some inspectors around here who would only accept certain pieces of equipment for certain applications. (Not that it makes it right.)

John,


I can see on new construction, the service entrance is in before the Telco equipment.

I can also see on a service replacement, if the EC disconnects the Telco ground he should be required to hook it back up.

However in this instance, the telco service was on the opposite side of the house and it NEVER was hooked into the electrical system, and it was like that for maybe 15-25 years. Now would the EC be required to hook up a grounding wire from the service to the Telco equipment? Should the AHJ fail the EC for not hooking it up?

Harold:

I have to say "No". IF I had a situation like that as AHJ, I would call telco, and if no result...a notice of violation (Unsafe condition)

That said, it would take time, and follow-up time, which is a real luxury that I would love to have. I could write a letter to the HO, advising them of the unsafe condition (Code violation), and hear "how come, it's been like that forever"

Again another axe to grind?

Perhaps, a chat with the EC, to inform his client (Ho) that the telco should be bonded, and a reasonable $$$ to do same would solve the issue? A friendly approach usually works for me, and everyone is happy & safe.

Want another can of worms??? How about all the "sins of the past" when a comm job has the ceiling tiles removed?? Voice/data laying on the grid?

were does it state that the telco box has to be tied to the service EGC and simply driving a seperate rod for the telco is not acceptable?

I'll find the appropriate article(s) later, time permitting, but the jist of the requirements is that all grounding electrodes must be interconnected.

John,


Above ceiling and wires on grid? OMG! that is a whole other subject. How many times have we gone into a building and found open boxes, open splices and old temp lighting above grid ceilings. Never mind the wires laying on the ceiling, there where all these open boxes, splices and wiring that was live and not protected.

As an AHJ, I demand an Above ceiling inspection, and I try to make sure that all of the old temp wiring is removed and all the boxes are closed up.

you drive a rod at a light pole and you dont connect it to the building grounds

800.100 is an interesting read for these questions.
Rewire, that rod on the pole is bonded to the service vis the grounded conductor.

Rewire:

A rod driven at a site light pole is bonded to the system via the EGC that is with the circuit conductors. Field procedure is Cadweld # 6 (or 4) to rod, tail up into pole base by feeders, bond to pole w/lug, tail pc. to splice to EGC. Design purpose of the rod at pole is lightning protection.

I watched FPL replace a pole the other day and they didn't even use a rod. The #4 solid just runs to the bottom of the pole and gets a little coil on the bottom end of the pole. These are deep enough to be in the ground water so I imagine it is a decent electrode.

most of the light poles I have seen their is no piutail to the egc

Time to clear the air....
The light poles that I reference herein are site lighting metal poles, installed by an EC, on private property. The 'rod' is a 'spec' item by the EE/PE/Arch.

I am not refering to utility poles (wood) installed and maintained by a utility here.

I have seen blocks from both Arlington and Erico for this purpose. I assume both are UL listed.

JimM:
IMHO, both brands you mention have UL listed bonding blocks; as to a specific model, can't tell ya.

John,


OK there are UL listed and labeled Intersystem Grounding Blocks (IGB) but what if someone just used a left over ground terminal from a service panel. The "ground bar" is made out of copper. Would that pass an inspection?

Harold:
The ground bar/neutral bar 'leftovers' may only be listed for being installed within an enclosure, and not exposed to the elements; BUT who can tell???

I have no idea if the items that are manufactured (UL listed) are any different from the bars within panels, or the bars that can be purchased & added to panels. I have to assume that the UL listed items are suitable for installation where subject to the elements.

I would suggest that the bus bars intended for use in cabinets are not wet location rated and the screws will quickly rust. You have the same problem when you use a ground lug outside.

Greg,

It is funny that you show that picture. How many times have I seen AL ground lugs on pool heaters. I fail that all the time. The EC tells me that it is UL listed for the application and I can't fail for that. I also show them the NEC in 680 where it says, the bonding must be , Copper, Brass SS, and it doesn't say anything about AL lugs!
I also called Hayworth pool equipment ans I complained to them that they are using AL lugs on their heaters and it is wrong. I am now seeing the pool heaters with Cu bonding lugs on them.

I agree. A few years ago all the pool manufacturers went to a different style lug that seems a lot more robust.

Aluminum is EXTREMELY sensitive to chloride ions...

Which occur in road salt, ocean mist, bleach and pool acid.

If you inspect any aluminum panel board bus installed near the coast...

Look to see whitish aluminum chloride powder on the rails and a nasty voltage drop of 1 to 3 percent from that alone.

I should move this thread over to my thread about pools. However I still see pool equipment coming through with AL lugs on them. When the job fails, the EC gets annoyed that I fail something that is UL listed for the application. Yet I have talked to UL in the past and they assured me that it is OK to fail the job if it didn't meet the NEC. I told UL that according to the NEC AL lugs are not approved for pool bonding and why are they allowing it on the equipment that they are certifying? They said that they will have to get back to me on that one. I am still waiting.

Harold:
Don't hold your breath while you wait.

Maybe we should move to a climate that has no pools?

I don't think the problem is, as much, the aluminum lug as it is the steel set screw they use in most that were designed for dry location use. The PoCo uses aluminum crimp sleeves all the time outside. I still believe you should be using a copper or bronze lug on pool equipment. The problem is, 680.26(B) simply refers you to 250.8 for the lug so you can't say there is any special "pool" type. You can only look for a listing that says wet location. If the installer can reasonably assert the equipment is in a dry location you don't even have that.

Greg,

If I see an AL lug used on pool equipment that is installed inside a house or cabana, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Even though the NEC states that Al is not allowed for bonding of a pool.