Adding a Ground Rod to a water Pipe Grounded System

[jumper]

it really doesn't mater why if its driven for any other reason than to supplement , than it is to be included #(5) correct?


(2) Metal Frame of the Building or Structure. The metal frame of the building or structure that is connected to the earth by any of the following method
Bonding the structural metal frame to one or more of the grounding electrodes as defined in 250.52(A)(5) or (A)(7) that comply with 250.56

David, the whole premise of the other thread and the OP question in this one was adding rods to supplement the water pipe electrode.

I said that the tap was okay...then...

In the other thread you sent me to 250.68, I said okay, and agreed. Retracted my answer.

When I answered Goldy in the beginning, I still said no go because of what you said.

I totally spaced on 250.53xxxx and skipped over the attachment points allowed. Tapping the GEC was okay since this was supplemental electrode.

Earlier you said this true.

What the heck are we arguing here? This is totally bewildering me.
.

 

[david]

David, the whole premise of the other thread and the OP question in this one was adding rods to supplement the water pipe electrode.

I said that the tap was okay...then...

In the other thread you sent me to 250.68, I said okay, and agreed. Retracted my answer.

When I answered Goldy in the beginning, I still said no go because of what you said.

I totally spaced on 250.53xxxx and skipped over the attachment points allowed. Tapping the GEC was okay since this was supplemental electrode.

Earlier you said this true.

What the heck are we arguing here? This is totally bewildering me.
.

We are not arguing that anymore. i think ,

The discussion broke from supplemental ground rods to the grounding electrodes 250.50 and 250.52 that are present.

Connecting a grounding electrode conductor to a grounding electrode system

250.64 Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation. (F) Installation to Electrode(s).

Does 250.64 F control by mandate 254 (F) ( 1,2,and 3)?

And if so

How can a grounding electrode conductor land on a Grounding electrode Bonding Jumper.

More specifically does 250.64 (F)( 3) state the grounding electrode conductor lands on a buss bar when you are bonding a grounding electrode conductor bonding jumper or jumpers to a grounding electrode conductor

EDIT: In the attachment it was deliberate not to bond the whole system together making two grounding electrode conductors necessary from the panels’ neutral buss
Just forgot to start the second GEC from the neutral buss

 

[al hildenbrand]

What the heck are we arguing here? This is totally bewildering me.

As I said earlier, David is beguiled by the Cartesian Circle, which is a logic fallacy. The fallacy here, in my opinion, is that "If a ground rod is driven at a structure, the resulting presence of the ground rod makes it a REQUIRED Grounding Electrode." This statement seems logical, but is actually saying that the OP installation of a ground rod, in an existing Grounding Electrode System that includes a Underground Metal Water Pipe, was actually required in the first place and cannot have the conductor from the rod connected as allowed by 2017 NEC 250.53(A)(2)(2).

Logical reasoning does not mean the reasoning is correct.

The fallacy hangs upon the meaning of "required" as David uses it.

 

[wwhitney]

David, please give me one code reference you would cite as a violation for the following arrangement: main service panel, grounding electrode conductor to an underground water pipe, split bolt on that GEC to a bonding jumper running to a second ground rod.

I don't see anything in 250 that is violated by the above.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[david]

David, please give me one code reference you would cite as a violation for the following arrangement: main service panel, grounding electrode conductor to an underground water pipe, split bolt on that GEC to a bonding jumper running to a second ground rod.

I don't see anything in 250 that is violated by the above.

Cheers, Wayne

“main service panel, grounding electrode conductor to an underground water pipe, split bolt on that GEC to a bonding jumper running to a second ground rod”

Lets change that to eliminate confusion over a supplemental ground rod
main service panel, grounding electrode conductor to footer steel, split bolt on that GEC to a bonding jumper running to a second ground rod

plastic water supply to the building

250.64 Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation. (F) Installation to Electrode(s). Grounding electrode conductor(s) and bonding jumpers interconnecting grounding electrodes shall be installed in accordance with (1), (2), or (3).

 

[wwhitney]

main service panel, grounding electrode conductor to footer steel, split bolt on that GEC to a bonding jumper running to a second ground rod,plastic water supply to the building

250.64 Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation. (F) Installation to Electrode(s). Grounding electrode conductor(s) and bonding jumpers interconnecting grounding electrodes shall be installed in accordance with (1), (2), or (3).

OK, I say the installation described complies with 250.64(F). I agree that the GEC and bonding jumpers have to comply with (1), (2), or (3). I choose (2): "Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be permitted to be run to one or more grounding electrode(s) individually." The GEC complies with this. (2) places no requirements on bonding jumpers, so the bonding jumper complies with this. Thus the installation complies with 250.64(F).

Cheers, Wayne

 

[david]

OK, I say the installation described complies with 250.64(F). I agree that the GEC and bonding jumpers have to comply with (1), (2), or (3). I choose (2): "Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be permitted to be run to one or more grounding electrode(s) individually." The GEC complies with this. (2) places no requirements on bonding jumpers, so the bonding jumper complies with this. Thus the installation complies with 250.64(F).

Cheers, Wayne

(2) Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be permitted to be run to one or more grounding electrode(s) individually.

Conductors (s) Electrode (s) does not change one grounding electrode conductor to one electrode individually

It simply means you duplicate one grounding electrode conductor to one grounding electrode individually as many times as it takes to become inclusive of all the grounding electrodes needing bonded to the grounded conductor

That being said it does not mean you cannot mix and match 1, 2, and 3 at the same building

 

[wwhitney]

I literally have no idea what you just said.

250.64(F)(2) does not say "Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be run to each grounding electrode individually" in case that is how you are interpreting it. It just says that the GEC shall be permitted to be run to one (or more) grounding electrode, and it doesn't address how the other grounding electrodes are connected. Perhaps that was not the author's intention, but that is what is written.

The example installation under discussion this morning also complies with 250.64(F)(1), as that section does not specify whether the bonding jumper is connected to the electrode served by the GEC, or to the GEC itself.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[david]

As I said earlier, David is beguiled by the Cartesian Circle, which is a logic fallacy. The fallacy here, in my opinion, is that "If a ground rod is driven at a structure, the resulting presence of the ground rod makes it a REQUIRED Grounding Electrode." This statement seems logical, but is actually saying that the OP installation of a ground rod, in an existing Grounding Electrode System that includes a Underground Metal Water Pipe, was actually required in the first place and cannot have the conductor from the rod connected as allowed by 2017 NEC 250.53(A)(2)(2).

Logical reasoning does not mean the reasoning is correct.

The fallacy hangs upon the meaning of "required" as David uses it.

we already settled the the op service

No what I am saying is why it is driven has everything to do it being a supplemental ground rod for the water system or a present ground rod for the grounding electrode system.

Two service existing for 25 years which set of ground rods are supplemental ground rods

If I have a service at a pump house / tool shed, plastic water lines, steel in the footer, two ground rods driven

On the other hand if I have a service at a pump house/ tool shed, no steel in the footer , metal water electrode in the ground ,two ground rods

Two service being built today which set of ground rods are supplemental ground rods

If I have a service at a pump house / tool shed, plastic water lines, steel in the footer, two ground rods driven

On the other hand if I have a service at a pump house/ tool shed, no steel in the footer , metal water electrode in the ground ,two ground rods

 

[david]

I literally have no idea what you just said.

250.64(F)(2) does not say "Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be run to each grounding electrode individually" in case that is how you are interpreting it. It just says that the GEC shall be permitted to be run to one (or more) grounding electrode, and it doesn't address how the other grounding electrodes are connected. Perhaps that was not the author's intention, but that is what is written.

The example installation under discussion this morning also complies with 250.64(F)(1), as that section does not specify whether the bonding jumper is connected to the electrode served by the GEC, or to the GEC itself.

Cheers, Wayne

You are correct the section does not say you have to utilize 2, rather you are permitted to use 2

Also true of 1 also true 3

Also true of 1,2, 3 combined

The portion of you grounding electrode system that utilizes 2 will have one individual conductor landed on one individual electrode

Does not 3 specifically lay out how to connect a grounding electrode to a bonding jumper, and if not so why even mention the buss bar, if it is already given you could just simply split bolt all your grounding electrodes bonding jumpers directly to your grounding electrode conductor

with that i am giving up, your mind is already made up, i presented my opinion you presented yours

it has been a good exercise in reading through all this, interesting perspective on how mandatory rules work when given choices in complying with a permissive statement

 

[wwhitney]

OK, so I think you've convinced me that the intention is that every GEC/bonding jumper should be installed as described in one of 250.64(F)(1), (2), or (3). I think the language could be a lot clearer, so I'm not convinced the wording actually has that force, but let's say it does.

I still don't see how you read 250.64(F)(1) to mean that the split bolt has to connect the bonding jumper to a grounding electrode the GEC is connected to, rather than directly to the GEC. But suppose for a moment it does. Then consider this installation: service disconnect -- GEC -- building steel -- bonding jumper (to building steel) -- ground rod -- split bolt to the first bonding jumper -- some other electrode.

Does this arrangement violate anything in 250? I really don't see how 250.64(F)(1) can be read to prohibit this arrangement. And if this arrangement is NEC compliant, does it really make sense to read 250.64(F)(1) to prohibit attaching the first bonding jumper to the GEC?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[david]

OK, so I think you've convinced me that the intention is that every GEC/bonding jumper should be installed as described in one of 250.64(F)(1), (2), or (3). I think the language could be a lot clearer, so I'm not convinced the wording actually has that force, but let's say it does.

I still don't see how you read 250.64(F)(1) to mean that the split bolt has to connect the bonding jumper to a grounding electrode the GEC is connected to, rather than directly to the GEC. But suppose for a moment it does. Then consider this installation: service disconnect -- GEC -- building steel -- bonding jumper (to building steel) -- ground rod -- split bolt to the first bonding jumper -- some other electrode.

Does this arrangement violate anything in 250? I really don't see how 250.64(F)(1) can be read to prohibit this arrangement. And if this arrangement is NEC compliant, does it really make sense to read 250.64(F)(1) to prohibit attaching the first bonding jumper to the GEC?

Cheers, Wayne

I don't know if it makes any sense, the only thing i can think of at the moment is 250.64 (C) and you already brought that up.

And as you pointed out early on there is no language about a joint when dealing with the bonding jumpers

(C) Continuous. Grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be installed in one continuous length without a splice or joint except as permitted in (1) and (2):
(1) Splicing shall be permitted only by irreversible compression-type connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment or by the exothermic welding process.
(2) Sections of busbars shall be permitted to be connected together to form a grounding electrode conductor.

 

[david]

After sitting here looking at it, if the grounding electrode conductor is installed without a joint (Tap)
Or splice you have one reliable bonded electrode.

I guess the jumpers add additional electrodes in a less reliable bonding scheme

 

[al hildenbrand]

Two service existing for 25 years which set of ground rods are supplemental ground rods

If I have a service at a pump house / tool shed, plastic water lines, steel in the footer, two ground rods driven

On the other hand if I have a service at a pump house/ tool shed, no steel in the footer , metal water electrode in the ground ,two ground rods

Two service being built today which set of ground rods are supplemental ground rods

If I have a service at a pump house / tool shed, plastic water lines, steel in the footer, two ground rods driven

On the other hand if I have a service at a pump house/ tool shed, no steel in the footer , metal water electrode in the ground ,two ground rods

As stated, I have to make assumptions, which are:

1. Since your profile, David, says you are using the 2008 NEC, the Code in effect 25 years ago was the 1981 NEC.
2. The "service" in each of your four scenarios above is a single service point, and there is a single service disconnect.

In both cases of the Concrete-Encased Electrode, that grounding electrode alone satisfies the minimum requirement of the Code. The Concrete-Encased Electrode ground rods are not "required by the NEC" to complete the Grounding Electrode System and are, therefore, supplemental.

In both cases of the Underground Metal Water Pipe scenarios above, the NEC clearly states that the ground rods are supplemental.

 

[al hildenbrand]

After sitting here looking at it, if the grounding electrode conductor is installed without a joint (Tap)
Or splice you have one reliable bonded electrode.

I guess the jumpers add additional electrodes in a less reliable bonding scheme

Reliable?

The GEC connection to the steel is, even if exothermic to the connector, mechanical between the connector and the steel. And that reversible mechanical means is not required to be accessible.

For that matter, all of the connectors at a 2008 NEC 250.64(F)(3) busbar are held to the busbar by reversible mechanical means.

 

[david]

As stated, I have to make assumptions, which are:

1. Since your profile, David, says you are using the 2008 NEC, the Code in effect 25 years ago was the 1981 NEC.
2. The "service" in each of your four scenarios above is a single service point, and there is a single service disconnect.

In both cases of the Concrete-Encased Electrode, that grounding electrode alone satisfies the minimum requirement of the Code. The Concrete-Encased Electrode ground rods are not "required by the NEC" to complete the Grounding Electrode System and are, therefore, supplemental.

In both cases of the Underground Metal Water Pipe scenarios above, the NEC clearly states that the ground rods are supplemental.

you refuse to except that electrodes in (A) (1) through (A) (7) that exist must be defined as required
when evaluating all present electrodes

You will not except that ground rods can be present before you decide if the water pipe needs to be supplemented by an additional electrode

 

[david]

Reliable?

The GEC connection to the steel is, even if exothermic to the connector, mechanical between the connector and the steel. And that reversible mechanical means is not required to be accessible.

For that matter, all of the connectors at a 2008 NEC 250.64(F)(3) busbar are held to the busbar by reversible mechanical means.

In the response to Wayne the section circled is a bonding jumper (green) taping a bonding jumper with a split bolt

The copper colored conductor is the grounding electrode conductor with out joint or splice

 

[al hildenbrand]

you refuse to except that electrodes in (A) (1) through (A) (7) that exist must be defined as required
when evaluating all present electrodes

You will not except that ground rods can be present before you decide if the water pipe needs to be supplemented by an additional electrode

"refuse to except" ? ? You must mean "accept?"

This is where you lose me in what seems to be a chicken and egg argument.

David, look at the two scenarios of the shed being electrified today. As far as the NEC is concerned, with a Concrete-Encased Electrode, the required (by the NEC) grounding electrodes are present. That is, ONLY a Concrete-Encased Electrode is needed.

If ground rods are added, that is above and beyond the minimum standard.

Driving the ground rods at the shed makes them "present", yes, but it doesn't suddenly make them "required", they are still optional. . . extra. . .

And in the metal underground water pipe present day scenario, the "supplemental" status of the ground rods (ONLY by the NEC) is written as such.

 

[al hildenbrand]

After sitting here looking at it, if the grounding electrode conductor is installed without a joint (Tap)
Or splice you have one reliable bonded electrode.

I guess the jumpers add additional electrodes in a less reliable bonding scheme

In the response to Wayne the section circled is a bonding jumper (green) taping a bonding jumper with a split bolt

The copper colored conductor is the grounding electrode conductor with out joint or splice

And I'm following your words, as written, I'm trying to include the real world use of bolts and nuts that are reversible and in certain cases buried inside walls as an exception to the idea of "without a joint." These bolts and nuts are not listed as any kind of grounding and bonding equipment.

 

[david]

"refuse to except" ? ? You must mean "accept?"

This is where you lose me in what seems to be a chicken and egg argument.

David, look at the two scenarios of the shed being electrified today. As far as the NEC is concerned, with a Concrete-Encased Electrode, the required (by the NEC) grounding electrodes are present. That is, ONLY a Concrete-Encased Electrode is needed.

If ground rods are added, that is above and beyond the minimum standard.

Driving the ground rods at the shed makes them "present", yes, but it doesn't suddenly make them "required", they are still optional. . . extra. . .

And in the metal underground water pipe present day scenario, the "supplemental" status of the ground rods (ONLY by the NEC) is written as such.

If they exist they are present if they are present the become inclusive of all it doesn’t mater if they are available

As i already stated steel in a footer is optional in a lot of dwellings being built once it exist it is present regardless of its optional status, the code dose not say if it is optional that some how does not make it present

I will only agree with you if its sole purpose was driven to supplement

The footer is not present until we pour it
The water system doesn’t exist until it is installed
A well casing in a basement is not there until the well is dug
Bar joist are not present until the crane arrives