Grounding Electrode Conductor

Status
Not open for further replies.
infinity said:
Ok well it sounds like it's all in the same building to me:



By taking the single building approach the new water pipe is now a "present" electrode (250.50) and must be connected back to the 1000 amp service directly or to another electrode service the service.
Click to expand...

That is also how I see it.
 
Interesting...

Electrically I wonder what makes this case apply/function differantly than a detached building like in 250.32 that provides the electrode connection through the EGC?
 
tryinghard said:
Interesting...

Electrically I wonder what makes this case apply/function differantly than a detached building like in 250.32 that provides the electrode connection through the EGC?
Click to expand...
thats what I'm saying why is this not acceptable for this situation.I understand that the new water service meet the grounding electrode requirement but does the code say you have to use all "possible" future electrode and bond them to the main electrical service no matter what.I Know it says all available must be used.I do see both side.
 
dwagener said:
thats what I'm saying why is this not acceptable for this situation.I understand that the new water service meet the grounding electrode requirement but does the code say you have to use all "possible" future electrode and bond them to the main electrical service no matter what.I Know it says all available must be used.I do see both side.
Click to expand...


Actually it says:

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. Where none of these grounding electrodes exist, one or more of the grounding electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) shall be installed and used.
E
Click to expand...


If the new water pipe is present it must be connected to the existing 1000 amp service. If someone wanted to argue that it came long after the 1000 amp service were installed therefore it doesn't require connection to the existing service then that would be a different argument altogether.
 
Not that it will help me with this argument but are you suggesting that my installation is arguable, because that is what I'm after.Thanks for everyones input this was my first time in this forum and it actually was fun and educational.
 
infinity said:
If the new water pipe is present it must be connected to the existing 1000 amp service. If someone wanted to argue that it came long after the 1000 amp service were installed therefore it doesn't require connection to the existing service then that would be a different argument altogether.
Click to expand...
Actually it says:
Quote:
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. Where none of these grounding electrodes exist, one or more of the grounding electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) shall be installed and used.E
Click to expand...

I am curious more than anything, :-? if a new water pipe is present at a new detached building it will be bonded to the grounding electrode system through the EGC (250.32) and sized with Table 250.122.

I am not arguing when the water service came in rather I am arguing it has no physical continuity to the existing water system. The water system for the original structure sounds bonded but this new water service is like that of a detached building, it is separate.

A detached building ? as example - is fed from distribution of one service. In this scenario, of a detached building, what makes it electrically different than what you are pointing out?
 
Trying, we don't count on the electrodes in the original building to ground a detached building. The detached building will get it's own electrode.

I agree that both buildings separate grounding electrode systems end up tied together via the EGC but that is just a coincidence not a requirement in and of it self.
 
tryinghard said:
Actually it says:


I am curious more than anything, :-? if a new water pipe is present at a new detached building it will be bonded to the grounding electrode system through the EGC (250.32) and sized with Table 250.122.

I am not arguing when the water service came in rather I am arguing it has no physical continuity to the existing water system. The water system for the original structure sounds bonded but this new water service is like that of a detached building, it is separate.

A detached building ? as example - is fed from distribution of one service. In this scenario, of a detached building, what makes it electrically different than what you are pointing out?
Click to expand...

I'm confused. :confused:
Are you refering to a post in this thread? If so, where does it actually say that these are two separate buildings?

Or is this a hypothetical question?
 
infinity said:
I'm confused. :confused:
Are you refering to a post in this thread? If so, where does it actually say that these are two separate buildings?

Or is this a hypothetical question?
Click to expand...

I think he is just comparing the differences between the rules for the same building and the rules for separate buildings.
 
This is probably screwd up thinking, but my approach would be that if this water line was the only water line to the entire building then I would require bonding from the service.
If any of the other occupancies have water lines isolated from this one, then 250.104(A)(2) would apply.
I personally would like to see this one bonded to the service regardless, but, I would accept 250.104(A)(2) under the conditions listed above.
 
Gus, I love you but you can't just make it up as you go along. :grin:

Here is my take.

The NEC require this electrode to be connected to the service with a 250.66 sized conductor based on the 1000 amp service conductors.

BUT, as I see it none of that is the OPs problem, he did not install the service or work on it. If the inspector wants the new water service connected to the service that should be an issue between the inspector and the property owner.
 
iwire said:
Gus, I love you but you can't just make it up as you go along. :grin:
Click to expand...
unfortunately thats the way I read it. incorrect? quite possibly--wpidn't be a first :) But, to me, one water line, one building = service; mulitiple water lines to various occupancies = 250.104(A)(2)

iwire said:
Here is my take.

The NEC require this electrode to be connected to the service with a 250.66 sized conductor based on the 1000 amp service conductors.
Click to expand...
if there are other water lines to other occupancies, would that still be the case, or does 250.104 (A)(2) negate connecting directly to the service?
[/quote]
iwire said:
BUT, as I see it none of that is the OPs problem, he did not install the service or work on it. If the inspector wants the new water service connected to the service that should be an issue between the inspector and the property owner.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you there. But, since the water line has been installed, it must be addressed by someone, the property owner bing the most likely subject.
 
augie47 said:
unfortunately thats the way I read it. incorrect? quite possibly--wpidn't be a first :) But, to me, one water line, one building = service; mulitiple water lines to various occupancies = 250.104(A)(2).
Click to expand...

Gus I am lost, here is what I see

We have one large building with multiple tenants.

It has a single 1000 amp service.

Presumably when the service was installed all existing electrodes where used.

Now another qualifying grounding electrode has been added to the building.

That to me goes right to 250.50 'All electrodes shall be connected to form a grounding electrode system' and of course 250.66 provides the conductor sizing requirements.
 
iwire said:
Now another qualifying grounding electrode has been added to the building.

That to me goes right to 250.50 'All electrodes shall be connected to form a grounding electrode system' and of course 250.66 provides the conductor sizing requirements.
Click to expand...

This is what I've been saying all along (thanks Bob for making it clearer). :smile:
 
iwire said:
Trying, we don't count on the electrodes in the original building to ground a detached building. The detached building will get it's own electrode.

I agree that both buildings separate grounding electrode systems end up tied together via the EGC but that is just a coincidence not a requirement in and of it self.
Click to expand...

I disagree in that this is ?a coincidence?, :grin: it is required and fully complies with 250.50. A separate building simply allows the EGC to be this connection for the grounding system (additional electrodes).

The detached buildings that are required to have electrodes are integral to the electrode system, these electrodes are not autonomous and one does not take precedence over the other. We should understand these electrodes to be included with the others as a system this is NEC. :cool:
 
This question remains unanswered from Post #23, even for opinions:

Electrically I wonder what makes this case apply/function differently than a detached building like in 250.32 that provides the electrode connection through the EGC?
 
tryinghard said:
I disagree in that this is ?a coincidence?, :grin: it is required and fully complies with 250.50. A separate building simply allows the EGC to be this connection for the grounding system (additional electrodes).
Click to expand...

OK good luck, I am out of this one.
 
I do not see this as off topic, although it might be challenging the status quo? I do see an inconsistency here with the electrodes GEC:
  • requires sizing per Table 250.66
  • requires sizing per Table 250.122

I think 250.104(A)(2) certainly can apply in this case and I do not see it as less safe by example of a detached building feed.

Both types require same purpose, in other words the function or purpose has not changed with the use of either types?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top