I don't see a forum specific for my area - I work for a cable company, and there is a question on bonding wire, and if our bonding wire can be spliced if it is damaged. I believe that it needs to be continuous, and that it CAN be spliced if proper splicing methods are used. Need to define it for our quality inspections - basically, I am trying to justify that it should be replaced, and not spliced with a split bolt as seen in the picture below. I think 250.64(c) is relevant - does it apply? I didn't see anything under chapter 8.
Hello Brian. Thank you for the picture.
First - the splice may not be permitted per the rules and regulations of the cable company that you work for. If they have a rule that does not allow for the splicing of bonding conductors, then that would trump the NEC.
250.64 is for the grounding electrode conductor for the electrical system. So that does not apply to you. Oh, by the way I'm using the 2017 NEC.
New installations should have an Intersystem Bonding Termination Device (IBTD) as described in 250.94. I don't know if that is a new home in the picture. The IBTD is specifically reserved just for communication equipment (so you can run your bond wire to the IBTD). Here is an example of what one looks like:
http://www.aimedia.co/media/images/GBB50.jpg
Other than that, it's basically like this: You would be looking through Article 820. 820 kicks you back over to 800. So you have to comply with both. For the connection of your bonding conductor to the grounding electrode, 820 does kick you over to 250.70. But you are not asking about how to connect to the electrode, you are asking about how to splice a communications bonding conductor. Cable bonding and grounding is covered in 820.100. but there is no mention of how to "splice" a bonding conductor (if one had to). 820.100 has sections on insulation, material, size, length, "run in a straight line," physical protection, etc. But nothing on splices.
I see no reason why it cannot be spliced as in the picture, provided that the split bolt is listed for that size wire. If you think about it - the wire would only continue to the IBTD device and connect there. Those connections to the IBTD are not required to be "irreversible" or any of that. So it would not make sense to require it prior to getting to that point. I think it can be spliced. The code article you are probably looking for is 250.8.
I will study up on this some more. If there is no pathway to get from 820.100 to 250.8, then I will submit a Public Input next time code opens up for revisions. Now we are in the middle of the 2020 cycle. So the code will not open up for Public Inputs for quite a while yet. 250.8 is still valid, nevertheless.