Ground at main or Main lug Panel?

[ronaldrc]

I have a copper water line system in this Bldg. I just upgrade to a 200 amp. Three phase system.

We can not tell or find where it enters the Bldg.The Electrical inspector wants it bonded for safety
reason in case it gets hoted up. Since it is not going to be either the primary or secondary grounding Electrode
I asked if I could Ground it in the Main lug distribution panel on the inside. He said no it had to go all the way
outside to the main service disconnect neutral/ground Bar.

The job is complete but I just wanted to get your ideas on if you think where I needed to take it.
I did take to the outside to keep from fussing about it.

My thoughts where since I was just bonding it for safety reasons the main lug distr. panel inside
would be just as good.


Here is a sketch of the layout

Thanks

 

[augie47]

Your thoughts not withstanding, the NEC requires it to got to the service for bonding of metal water piping (250.104) or to the grounded conductor at or before the service if the piping is actually a grounding electrode (250.24)

(There is an exception for multiple occupany buildings)

 

[ronaldrc]

Your thoughts not withstanding, the NEC requires it to go to the service for bonding of metal water piping (250.104) or to the grounded conductor at or before the service if the piping is actually a grounding electrode (250.24)

(There is an exception for multiple occupany buildings)

I think both of thoughs apply if your using your copper as a grounding Electrode.
Isn't the ground bar in the main lug panel inside for bonding.In bonding it there
I am just using the bar in the main panel as a splicing point.
And the only conductor we can not splice is the Grounding Electrode conductor?

Thanks

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think the code section is clear as to where you can make the water pipe bonding connection. It is not permitted at the interior MLO panel. The inspector is correct.

250.104(A)(1) General. Metal water piping system(s) installed in or attached to a building or structure shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or to the one or more grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance with Table 250.66 except as permitted in 250.104(A)(2) and (A)(3).

 

[ronaldrc]

I think the code section is clear as to where you can make the water pipe bonding connection. It is not permitted at the interior MLO panel. The inspector is correct.

Don I agree that says the main grounding bar in the main switch or service disc.

I still believe when that was written they where thinking of using the water line as an Electrode.

You don't have to take a range or any other metal equipments ground bond back to the main.
I could use the MLO ground bar for them.

What would be the difference in that water line and a frame of a large metal gear Enclosure or a range?

If I where the inspector I think I would allow landing it on the MLO equipment ground.

Does anyone think this should be an exception since it is not going to be used a Grounding Electrode.

Thanks

 

[augie47]

THere is merit in that there should possibly be an exception.
You can submit that idea to the CMP and perhaps you will be the initiator of change.
Until then, if the inspector is doing his job, he will enforce the wording of the Code as adopted.

 

[ronaldrc]

THere is merit in that there should possibly be an exception.
You can submit that idea to the CMP and perhaps you will be the initiator of change.
Until then, if the inspector is doing his job, he will enforce the wording of the Code as adopted.

I think it would be a good exception to.But I want apply for it.Lord knows theres not enough exceptions in there already.


When my inspector was there I ask if I could land it on the MLO ground bar.He said you need to take it out to the Main Disc. then he looked at it and said it is long enough isn't it? Although my inspector is very strick I do beleive if I said no he would have let me land it in the MLO panel. It was just 8ft to the main outside.

I think inspectors need to use a little common sense.

Thanks

 

[Ponchik]

I think the reason it needs to go to the service, is when the service is disconnected for reapir there is no power to the building so when the bonding gets undone at that time in the main panel it should be safe because theoretically there power to the building is disconnected so water bonding is not required.

However, when you do install the bonding to another enclosure other than the service and that enclosure needs to get repaired and you undo the bonding at that enclosure then the water piping system is not bonded anymore.

i believe that is the reason. I am sure someone will set me straight if i am incorrect.

 

[Smart $]

I think it would be a good exception to.But I want apply for it.Lord knows theres not enough exceptions in there already.

While the concept has merit, I don't believe it would get accepted. The bonding jumper is to be sized per 250.66, whereas the EGC to the MLO gets sized per 250.122.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Does anyone think this should be an exception since it is not going to be used a Grounding Electrode.

No. What if the 'sub panel' is abandoned in the future? Little harder to abondon a 'main panel'.

Not sure if you could create a paralleled path or not if someone did some improper bonding in that sub panel.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

No. What if the 'sub panel' is abandoned in the future? Little harder to abondon a 'main panel'.

You can say that about the pipe itself or the bonding connection to the pipe. I don't see an increased hazard by making the connection in this panel and in this case it really is the "main" panel, it just doesn't have the service disconnect in it.

Not sure if you could create a paralleled path or not if someone did some improper bonding in that sub panel.

You can always create a parrallel path with improper connections, this installation would not increase that risk.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I would support a number of changes in the water pipe bonding rule. I see no need for water pipe to treated differently than any other metal piping sytem. There is no technical reason to require the water pipe to be bonded with a conductor sized per T250.66. There is no reason why the water pipe should not be permitted to be bonded by the EGC for the circuit that is likely to energize the water pipe. There is no reason for the water pipe bonding conductor to originate at the service equipment or the grounding elctrode or grounding electrode conductor.

 

[jxofaltrds]

You can say that about the pipe itself or the bonding connection to the pipe. I don't see an increased hazard by making the connection in this panel and in this case it really is the "main" panel, it just doesn't have the service disconnect in it.


You can always create a parrallel path with improper connections, this installation would not increase that risk.

Agreed. I do not know where I got 'sub panel' from. :ashamed1:

 

[kwired]

ronaldrc you said in OP that you could not tell where the water piping enters the building.

If there is 10 feet or metallic line in the ground it is a grounding electrode - will likely carry some current at times - or maybe even all the time.

You want this landed at the service equipment or you will introduce that current into the equipment grounding system easier, as well as make it easier to develop voltages between true ground and the equipment grounding system.

 

[ronaldrc]

I think two people on here got the point that this was not going to be a grounding Electrode.


There are probably 10 copper sweat joint fittings between where I put the ground clamp and where the pipe possibly enters the Bldg.

Myself and the inspector both concluded it needed to be bonded only as a safety issue just in case it ever got enengized by a hot wire getting in contact with it. And I can not see why it couldn't be treated as such.

Thanks for the replies "Ronald

 

[ronaldrc]

I don't see an increased hazard by making the connection in this panel and in this case it really is the "main" panel, it just doesn't have the service disconnect in it.

Don I was going to say at one time, it is the same as the main panel without the main.But I just knew I would
be beat to death if I made that statement.


This Panel is a main with extra long buss extension to the main breaker. right,"Rog"?

And it is also treated just like a sub panel.

Thanks

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Agreed. I do not know where I got 'sub panel' from. :ashamed1:

Sub-panel is not a defined term, but it is commonly defined as any panel that does not have the service disconnect (or the first OCPD for an SDS) within it. Working from that, "sub-panel" would be a correct term. It is just that in this case, if it were to be removed, you would have also removed the power to the building, making it a special case of "sub-panel".

 

[jxofaltrds]

I think two people on here got the point that this was not going to be a grounding Electrode.


There are probably 10 copper sweat joint fittings between where I put the ground clamp and where the pipe possibly enters the Bldg.

Myself and the inspector both concluded it needed to be bonded only as a safety issue just in case it ever got enengized by a hot wire getting in contact with it. And I can not see why it couldn't be treated as such.

Thanks for the replies "Ronald

It is not a good idea, it is required to bond.

Not to offend you but no one knows where the main water shut off to the building is?

I personally think that this is a big deal (as described above by others) if we have a metal waterline as the supply.

 

[ronaldrc]

It is not a good idea, it is required to bond.

Not to offend you but no one knows where the main water shut off to the building is?

I personally think that this is a big deal (as described above by others) if we have a metal waterline as the supply.

No you didn't offend me. It has a cutoff in the wall the pipe runs in such a way through a framed wall you couldn't get to it without a lot of tearing out.

I can't think of any reason any current would flow on my grounding electrode conductor, all the service conductors
and branch circuits are isolated from ground and sized to NEC tables.

If for some reason the utility grounds are not of good continuity, I have no control over that.
I do understand there have been houses to burn to the ground because of loose neutrals and the like
but what I am suggesting here has nothing to do with that. Not offended but ,Irratatied

Thanks

 

[kwired]

I think two people on here got the point that this was not going to be a grounding Electrode.


There are probably 10 copper sweat joint fittings between where I put the ground clamp and where the pipe possibly enters the Bldg.

Myself and the inspector both concluded it needed to be bonded only as a safety issue just in case it ever got enengized by a hot wire getting in contact with it. And I can not see why it couldn't be treated as such.

Thanks for the replies "Ronald

It is a grounding electrode even if you do not want it to be. If you have 10 feet or more of water pipe in the ground the NEC says that is a grounding electrode and you must use it. It does not give you an option to not use it.

250.50 Grounding Electrode System. All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are present at each building or structure served shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. ...

250.52 Grounding Electrodes. (A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding.

(1) Metal Underground Water Pipe. A metal underground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0 m (10 ft) or more (including any metal well casing bonded to the pipe) and electrically continuous (or made electrically continuous by bonding around insulating joints or insulating pipe) to the points of connection of the grounding electrode conductor and the bonding conductor(s) or jumper(s), if installed.