Grounding a receptacle to cold water pipe

[jwelectric]

What do you mean an assumption. If the gec can connect anywhere within 5' then it appears the water pipe is an electrode for 5'. 250.52 last sentence before except.

The only part of that metal water pipe that is an electrode is the part that is in direct contact with earth.
The five feet we are allowed to connect to is only a grounding path and is in no way part of the electrode.

See page 93 of the 2011 Analysis of changes

 

[jxofaltrds]

I'll have to wait until I get the 2011 before I can reply. It may not be an electrode but is it still part of the electrode system?

 

[jwelectric]

I'll have to wait until I get the 2011 before I can reply. It may not be an electrode but is it still part of the electrode system?

Again the first five feet is not electrode nor is it part of the electrode system. It is not now nor has it ever been and this misconception is cleared up in the 2011 cycle in 250.52(A) and 250.68(C).
This five feet is nothing more than a connection point and grounding path to the electrode system.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Where's the verb

Where's the verb

This is interesting as they have moved the 5' requirement in 2011 to 250.68(C). The brownish section is new and the 5' section deleted here.

What I find interesting is that all these years that section is an English majors nightmare-- there is no verb so it isn't even a sentence

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.

The wording in 2011 in 250.68(C) basically calls the 5' a conductor to interconnect electrodes that are part of the electrode system.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Again the first five feet is not electrode nor is it part of the electrode system. It is not now nor has it ever been and this misconception is cleared up in the 2011 cycle in 250.52(A) and 250.68(C).
This five feet is nothing more than a connection point and grounding path to the electrode system.

So it is "An equally substantial approved means"? 250.70(4).

Did they change the wording in 250.52(A)? If not it clearly calls the first 5' as part of the electrode system.:-?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Again the first five feet is not electrode nor is it part of the electrode system. It is not now nor has it ever been and this misconception is cleared up in the 2011 cycle in 250.52(A) and 250.68(C).
This five feet is nothing more than a connection point and grounding path to the electrode system.

If it is not part of the system then it seems we cannot use the 5' to satisfy 250.130(C)(1). You may as well not even have it since (2) allows us to connect to any accessible point on the grounding electrode conductor.

I thought the stated somewhere that the cee was an electrode up to 5' also. No?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

So it is "An equally substantial approved means"? 250.70(4).

Did they change the wording in 250.52(A)? If not it clearly calls the first 5' as part of the electrode system.:-?

Read my post above yours

 

[jwelectric]

If it is not part of the system then it seems we cannot use the 5' to satisfy 250.130(C)(1). You may as well not even have it since (2) allows us to connect to any accessible point on the grounding electrode conductor.

I thought the stated somewhere that the cee was an electrode up to 5' also. No?

See 250.130(C)(2)

 

[renosteinke]

Are we not now required to run ALL conductors of a circuit in the same cable or raceway? Wouldn't that preclude adding a grounding/ bonding wire to an existing system, and instead mandate a re-wire?

 

[jwelectric]

Are we not now required to run ALL conductors of a circuit in the same cable or raceway? Wouldn't that preclude adding a grounding/ bonding wire to an existing system, and instead mandate a re-wire?

Well of course we need to keep all out conductors in the same cable or raceway except as allowed here;

250.130 Equipment Grounding Conductor Connections.
Equipment grounding conductor connections at the source of separately derived systems shall be made in accordance with 250.30(A)(1). Equipment grounding conductor connections at service equipment shall be made as indicated in 250.130(A) or (B). For replacement of non?grounding-type receptacles with grounding-type receptacles and for branch-circuit extensions only in existing installations that do not have an equipment grounding conductor in the branch circuit, connections shall be permitted as indicated in 250.130(C).

(C) Nongrounding Receptacle Replacement or Branch Circuit Extensions. The equipment grounding conductor of a grounding-type receptacle or a branch-circuit extension shall be permitted to be connected to any of the following:
(1) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode system as described in 250.50
(2) Any accessible point on the grounding electrode conductor
(3) The equipment grounding terminal bar within the enclosure where the branch circuit for the receptacle or branch circuit originates
(4) For grounded systems, the grounded service conductor within the service equipment enclosure
(5) For ungrounded systems, the grounding terminal bar within the service equipment enclosure

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Are we not now required to run ALL conductors of a circuit in the same cable or raceway? Wouldn't that preclude adding a grounding/ bonding wire to an existing system, and instead mandate a re-wire?

Look at 300.3(B)(2)