amps on h2o line

[megawatt]

Let me ask this.



Why is that such an important issue for you?

It's not like the residents at that particular house are responsible for a utilities open neutral.

The people in that particular house are no more at fault the the people down the street. Why is their safety of less importance?

In the end I don't really see one way or the other as having a distinct advantage or dis-advantage.

#1
I guess it's another of My anti socialism views.
#2
It wouldn't have to be a POCO neutral connection for this to happen. I've seen the majority of these cases be inside an old meterbase.

Well I guess We'll just have to respectfully disagree on this issue. From what I've seen from the POCO job to the EC job, I will go down swinging with the idea that they should not be interconnected, bonded inside the home, but not interconnected to the water supply system.
Thanks for the debate Guys, although I haven't gotten any confirmed converts !

 

[karl riley]

I agree with Megawatt.
Brian, if a house looses a neutral usually some light bulbs blow out and a vacuum cleaner does not work or overheats, but usually the house does not burn down and nobody dies. One thing is certain: the owners call the POCO and the POCO responds immediately.

If a metallic water system is in place, no one knows there is an open neutral until someone disconnects a pipe in the water service and then someone can die.

I am on the side of not masking a bad situation but letting the symptoms tell you to take action and fix it.

As to EMFs, the current on the water pipes in these situations sets up a very large magnetic field which can expose children to many times the magnetic field associated with childhood leukemia. This is one of the most common causes of high magnetic fields that I have dealt with over the years. The Code compliant solution is to insert a dielectric coupling or piece of plastic in the water service pipe at least 10' out from the foundation. No electrode has been removed.

In cold climates this may mean a lot of digging. One homeowner decided to have a plumber install a plastic water filter in the basement where the water came in. The plumber didn't know about adding a copper jumper. Hey, plumbers are not electricians!

NEC aside, the current on the pipe was stopped, the internal water system was still bonded, and the only piece of metal not bonded was a short stub leading to the basement wall. Of course even this stub was bonded, but in a neighbor's house to their service!

Karl

 

[George Stolz]

I agree with meggwatt. we should be given the ability to correct a faulty issue as it comes up and not be forced to do nothing.

What about 250.6(B)(1)?

 

[sparky_magoo]

What about 250.6(B)(1)?

Thats what the ground rods are for.

 

[petersonra]

I think that is playing games with the requirements.

If the plumber destroys it before the EC is involved thats one thing.

If an EC working under the NEC arrives on the job and intentionally destroys an electrode which is 'present' instead of connecting to it they have in fact violated the requirement to use it per 250.50

Nothing has been destroyed. How would this be any different than someone removing the copper pipe at some point and installing plastic?

I grant you that the electrician should not be doing this particular work unless he is also a competent plumber.

 

[iwire]

Nothing has been destroyed.

The grounding electrode would be destroyed.

How would this be any different than someone removing the copper pipe at some point and installing plastic?

Those people are not bound by the NEC, an electrician is.

I walk on the job, the electrode is there, the NEC says connect to it.

Looks like the CMP agrees with me as they turned down Don's very reasonable proposal.

Don't confuse what I think the NEC requires for what I think make sense.

 

[karl riley]

Bob, how about this. You walk on the job. The electrode is there. You connect it. You then measure objectionable current. You remove the connection and supplement with another electrode.

Karl

PS This is what Code Watch concluded was legal some 17 years ago.

 

[karl riley]

Correction: you do not remove the connection (bond). You effectively remove the electrode by blocking the current.

Karl

 

[don_resqcapt19]

which by the way read 0 amps

No...they just have less current than your meter can read. They are a parallel path and will have some current.
Don

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Karl,

You walk on the job. The electrode is there. You connect it. You then measure objectionable current. You remove the connection and supplement with another electrode.
Karl
PS This is what Code Watch concluded was legal some 17 years ago.

My discussions with you on this issue was the basis for my proposal where CMP 5 said you can't do that. However, there is nothing that prevents the building owner from hiring a plumber to put an isolating fitting in the underground metal water pipe. They are not bound by the NEC and CMP 5's statements...only the EC is.
Don

 

[iwire]

Bob, how about this. You walk on the job. The electrode is there. You connect it. You then measure objectionable current.

What is 'objectinable current' and where did you find the defintion?

In other words I would say it would depend on the inspectors idea of objectionable.

Considering the millions of situations like this that exist I think it is a stretch to suddenly say its 'objectionable'.

PS This is what Code Watch concluded was legal some 17 years ago.

I don't know who 'code watch' is but it does not jive with the CMPs comments to Don's good proposal.

 

[iwire]

However, there is nothing that prevents the building owner from hiring a plumber to put an isolating fitting in the underground metal water pipe. They are not bound by the NEC and CMP 5's statements...only the EC is.
Don

Don, I fully agree and IMO they really did not give your proposal a good chance.

 

[mdshunk]

They are not bound by the NEC and CMP 5's statements...only the EC is.

I sorta think they are. The codes, where adopted, have equal force without regard to your trade.

 

[George Stolz]

The codes, where adopted, have equal force without regard to your trade.

With that perspective, it's kind of a waste of time to supplement the water pipe, isn't it?

 

[mdshunk]

With that perspective, it's kind of a waste of time to supplement the water pipe, isn't it?

I'm not sure I know what you mean, but if you're saying that there's more electrical ignorance among non-electricians, then that would be true. I don't think it's an NEC violation to install a di-electric coupling, but if one felt it was, it would be equally improper for an electrician or a plumber to install one. Much as we, as electricians, are bound by the building codes for things such as boring and notching rules, the plumber can't violate the NEC just because he's not an electrician.

 

[iwire]

I sorta think they are. The codes, where adopted, have equal force without regard to your trade.

But the NEC does not require a plumber to use all the electrodes present as the plumber will not likely be at the home to install an electrical service.

 

[mdshunk]

But the NEC does not require a plumber to use all the electrodes present as the plumber will not likely be at the home to install an electrical service.

I'm talking about the owner hiring a plumber to install a di-electric fitting, not connecting electrodes. If a plumber disconnected an electrode that was present, for whatever reason, he created a violation. If my lawn guy went out and disconnected my rod electrodes, for instance, because they offended him, even though the NEC does not address lawn care, he created a violation. The NEC directs that all electrodes present by used. It doesn't have an exception for your trade.

 

[petersonra]

250.6 does appear to give you an out if you need to eliminate objectionable current. However, there does not appear to be a clear definition of objectionable that would support taking the steps allowed in 250.6.

My main argument would be that since a dielectric fitting in the water line is perfectly legal, you are not creating a violation by having one installed. There is no requirement in the code that says you have to have a metal water pipe as a GE, only that if you have one, and it qualifies as a GE, you have to use it.

 

[brian john]

Karl:

As I stated before I am all for installing die-electric couplings when there is a current sharing issue. My point was that both situations are hazardous to someone, I have seen residential and commercial properties where the neutral was loss and the damage far exceeded a few light bulbs.

My point to meg was, is a utility worker receiving a shock worse than a family of 5 dying in a fire? Only an example.

As for my house I am on a well and city water (plastic) and have my own transformer.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Marc,

I sorta think they are. The codes, where adopted, have equal force without regard to your trade.

I guess I should rephrase. There is no code requirement to provide a metal underground water pipe grounding electrode. The code requires us to use it if it is present. Once the plumber puts the isolating fitting in, that electrode is no longer available. As far as making changes to the existing metal underground water pipe that would reduce or eliminate its effectiveness as a grounding electrode, that possibility is the only reason that the code requires a supplemental electrode for this application.
Don