AHJ Grounding Electrode Requirement

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jclint07

Member
Location
south missouri
As the electrical inspector for my jurisdiction, I have always required the metal water pipe to be used as a grounding electrode, if available (Section 250.50). I have even gone a step further and required it to be terminated on the street side of the meter/shutoff valve; though I realize the code states it can be terminated up to (5) from metal water pipe point of entrance (Section 250.52(A)(1)).

The powers that be (my department supervisors) have asked me to stop requiring the use of the metal water piping as an electrode, due to possible electrocution of plumbers, etc, who may eventually work on the water lines with a potential stray current on the pipe.
Though I believe terminating the grounding electrode on the street side of the meter/shutoff will alleviate (not eliminate) the potential danger, I strongly believe I will lose this argument with my superiors and the metal water pipe electrode will no longer be required.

My question is since the lone ground rod would now be the only grounding electrode I could actually enforce by code, should I ask for a concession from my superiors that we require a triad grounding system, with 8' ground rods outside at the service lateral/service disconnect? As a former electrical contractor, I know that a single or even double ground rod system (Section 250.56) alone does not seem to provide an adequate grounding electrode system. I am strictly referring to service upgrades for existing structures. New homes or projects are always required to implement the concrete-encased electrode in the footing. Opinions welcome.
 
Last edited:
roger

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
jclint07 said:
My question is since the lone ground rod would now be the only grounding electrode I could actually enforce by code, should I ask for a concession from my superiors that we require a triad grounding system, with 8' ground rods outside at the service lateral/service disconnect?
Click to expand...
That would simply be a waste of natural resources and acheive very little. As pointed out earlier, at our voltages the GES is only there for lightning and surges (see 250.4(A)(1)) and three won't be much different than two

I would point out to your supperiors that they are walking on thin ice if something were to happen because of them writing codes.


Roger
 
Smart $

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
jclint07 said:
... The powers that be (my department supervisors) have asked me to stop requiring the use of the metal water piping as an electrode... Opinions welcome.
Click to expand...
Here in Ohio, local amendments to the NEC have to be approved by the state. Simply stated, your superiors' request would be rejected.
 
ceb58

ceb58

Senior Member
Location
Raeford, NC
roger said:
That would simply be a waste of natural resources and acheive very little. As pointed out earlier, at our voltages the GES is only there for lightning and surges (see 250.4(A)(1)) and three won't be much different than two

I would point out to your supperiors that they are walking on thin ice if something were to happen because of them writing codes.


Roger
Click to expand...

I would want that in a local amendment or at the least a memo from your supervisors stating that before I would enforce it. I would then take the memo and lock it away in a safety deposit box.
 
H

haskindm

Senior Member
Location
Maryland
This was proposed in our area but for a different reason. They were blaming corrosion of the pipes on them being bonded to the electrical system and/or used as grounding conductors. I was asked to write a response to the proposal. I explained the very real dangers of electrocution from un-bonded waterlines and cited the numerous articles that would be violated and the proposal was withdrawn. Amazing the stupidity that exists in government!
 
J

jclint07

Member
Location
south missouri
Thanks for all the replies. As of now, here in my state, each individual city (jurisdiction) has its own set of ordinances, code adoptions, etc. The jurisdiction next to ours prohibits using the incoming metal water piping as a grounding electrode, for whatever reason. Perhaps that is where my superiors are getting their information. I hope to have a discussion with them this afternoon to get more clarification.

State $...our local amendments do not have to be approved by the state.

Ceb58...You're correct; it would be amended in our actual ordinance before I could enforce the new requirement, if it is indeed amended.

Roger... I agree with you 100% that 3 ground rods are probably no more effective than two, but I feel it is my duty as an inspector & former electrical contractor, to try and have some type of electrodes greater than a single or double 8' ground rods installed. I thought perhaps a triad system was more practical than a ground-ring around the structure or a 20' trench of concrete, though I personally have no data to back that up.

The new requirement will probably come down as an amendment within the next few weeks. I will point out the code references and reasons behind the grounding electrode system again. Just looking for possible ideas or solutions. Thanks again all!
 
electricguy61

electricguy61

Senior Member
Location
Remotely running business in Bay Area, CA from Med
Please don't miss the point here: the water system must be bonded for personal safety. Suppose an electric water heater element fails. The water system isn't bonded to ground, You touch the shower valve while standing on the cast iron drain pipe. Ouch or even death!

Changing what grounding electrode is used doesn't change that the water system must be bonded/grounded. And if the water main happens to be the best ground when the system neutral fails, you still have the problem of a plumber getting bit when he cuts into the water main. (I know about this, because it's happened on two different jobs I was called to troubleshoot. In both cases, the incoming POCO neutral had failed. Even though it's not what it's designed for, the grounding electrode will at times work to complete a circuit)

Your city should leave this one to the "experts". I disagree with the NEC all the time, but not on this requirement.
 
infinity

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Since the higher-ups want to go around the requirements of the NEC then I would let them figure out what a suitable replacement for the water pipe electrode should be. Put them on the hook when something bad happens.
 
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
jclint07 said:
As the electrical inspector for my jurisdiction, I have always required the metal water pipe to be used as a grounding electrode, if available (Section 250.50). I have even gone a step further and required it to be terminated on the street side of the meter/shutoff valve; though I realize the code states it can be terminated up to (5) from metal water pipe point of entrance (Section 250.52(A)(1)).

.
Click to expand...

You have forgotten something very important. Jumping the water meter to 'bond' the interior lines.

Lets say your water line from the street is poly. Do you make them bond metal water lines?
 
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
Smart $ said:
Here in Ohio, local amendments to the NEC have to be approved by the state. Simply stated, your superiors' request would be rejected.
Click to expand...

Thats supposed to be true but Dublin beat the State in a lawsuit on home rule. I have looked for the lawsuit but can not find it so I can not give you the exact details.
 
Smart $

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
kwired

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
electricguy61 said:
Please don't miss the point here: the water system must be bonded for personal safety. Suppose an electric water heater element fails. The water system isn't bonded to ground, You touch the shower valve while standing on the cast iron drain pipe. Ouch or even death!

Changing what grounding electrode is used doesn't change that the water system must be bonded/grounded. And if the water main happens to be the best ground when the system neutral fails, you still have the problem of a plumber getting bit when he cuts into the water main. (I know about this, because it's happened on two different jobs I was called to troubleshoot. In both cases, the incoming POCO neutral had failed. Even though it's not what it's designed for, the grounding electrode will at times work to complete a circuit)

Your city should leave this one to the "experts". I disagree with the NEC all the time, but not on this requirement.
Click to expand...
In the water heater failed element example there is supposed to be an equipment grounding conductor run to the water heater, which would minimize the risk in that example. But leaving the grounding electrode details aside for a moment - metal piping needs to be grounded anyway in case of accidental contact with an ungrounded conductor.

A metal water pipe buried in the earth is a grounding electrode whether you want it to be or not. When a transient from lightning happens to be on the electrical system there is likelihood that something is going to be bonded to a water pipe somewhere, but it will not be via a conductor sized to 250.66 if you did not intentionally make the water pipe part of the grounding electrode system.

Now since you have a connection between this underground metal pipe whether intentional or not, and lets say you have the same thing next door, you have a conductor (metal water pipe) connected between the two services - current will flow through this path whether you want it to or not. That is the current that gets the plumbers that happen to open circuit a pipe when working on it. Even without an intentional grounding electrode conductor this condition can and often will still exist as it is hard to ensure the water pipe does not become bonded to the electrical system. Equipment grounding conductor to anything that also connects to water is all it takes.
 
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
This might be part of it.

? 23. Here, the General Assembly could not have intended to control the subject of
electrical regulations exclusively because there is no state statute that provides any such
regulations. The state's argument is, essentially, that Ohio recognizes the National
Electric Code as its own regulations for that field, and because Dublin's electrical
regulations are slightly stricter than those promulgated by the NEC, Dublin's code
conflicts with the state of Ohio's code. This argument has no merit because the NEC is
not a state statute, and it was not promulgated by the General Assembly.

{?39} We therefore agree with the trial court to the extent that the state has
failed to show that Dublin's electrical regulations conflict with any state statute.
Accordingly, we overrule the state's sole assignment of error as to the cross-appeal.
 
Last edited:
S

suemarkp

Senior Member
Location
Kent, WA
Occupation
Retired Engineer
Seems like a better solution to the problem would be a plumbing solution -- use a section of PVC or poly pipe in the main water feed to the house so it is isolated from a metal street pipe or neighbor pipe. Now the only risk is if the house in question has a failing neutral. No way to prevent a shock from that.
 
Smart $

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
jxofaltrds said:
This might be part of it.

...
Click to expand...
Right. Lacking a state statute, I don't see such a stricter local requirement as conflicting with the state's (the NEC by codified reference). The NEC has many minimum and maximum requirements. Lessening a minimum or elevating a maximum requirement would conflict. Increasing a minimum or lowering a maximum is still in compliance.

The state also argued financial impact. What section of the NEC covers that...??? ;)
 
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
Smart $ said:
Right. Lacking a state statute, I don't see such a stricter local requirement as conflicting with the state's (the NEC by codified reference). The NEC has many minimum and maximum requirements. Lessening a minimum or elevating a maximum requirement would conflict. Increasing a minimum or lowering a maximum is still in compliance.

The state also argued financial impact. What section of the NEC covers that...??? ;)
Click to expand...

The RCO (Residential Code of Ohio) does.

Dublin requiring a 200 AMP vs a 100 AMP service violates the below. IMHO. How is the public served by forcing a higher service rating?

For those who do not know why we now have the RCO, it is because the buildiers want to be a home without having each AHJ saying "it's my way or the highway".

Should I have to install 3/4 plywood on my roof when 5/8 OSB is OK?

101.3 Intent.

The purpose of this code is to establish uniform requirements for the erection, construction, repair, alteration, and maintenance of residential buildings, including construction of industrialized units. Such requirements shall relate to the conservation of energy, safety and sanitation of buildings for their intended use and occupancy with consideration for the following:

1. Performance. Establish such requirements, in terms of performance objectives for the use intended. Further, the rules shall consider the following:

1.1. The impact that the state residential building code may have upon the health, safety and welfare of the public;

1.2. The economic reasonableness of the residential building code;

1.3. The technical feasibility of the residential building code; and

1.4. The financial impact that the residential building code may have on the public?s ability to purchase affordable housing.

http://publicecodes.citation.com/st/oh/st/b4v06/st_oh_st_b4v06_1_sec001.htm?bu=OH-P-2011-000004
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top