Grounding Electrode Conductor

[chris kennedy]

Yesterday we had group hugs and today we have this?

Gus, I love you

When do we all move in together?:grin:

 

[iwire]

OK I must be board to come back and keep trying. :roll:

I do not see this as off topic,

You should probably start a new thread for your topic. Threads are not expensive.

although it might be challenging the status quo?

Oh yes you are shaking things up and must be silenced. :roll:

I do see an inconsistency here with the electrodes GEC:

• requires sizing per Table 250.66
• requires sizing per Table 250.122

And I see no inconsistency, not one bit. And my view has nothing to do with the status quo.

The conductors that are EXPECTED / REQUIRED to be part of the GES have to be sized per 250.66

The conductors that are not EXPECTED / REQUIRED to be part of the GES have to be sized per 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.

Only if you choose to ignore the NEC requirements contained in 250.50

Both types require same purpose, in other words the function or purpose has not changed with the use of either types?

Again, the EGC between separate buildings does not perform the same function as the GEC inside a single building.

It is that simple.

 

[dwagener]

again I see both ways but more towards tryinghard because he see's it like me the code is there to make us install electrical in a safe manner and this is a safe manner,even though it isn't exactly by the book it's just a unique situation but still more than safe right?

 

[dwagener]

OK I must be board to come back and keep trying. :roll:



You should probably start a new thread for your topic. Threads are not expensive.




Oh yes you are shaking things up and must be silenced. :roll:





And I see no inconsistency, not one bit. And my view has nothing to do with the status quo.

The conductors that are EXPECTED / REQUIRED to be part of the GES have to be sized per 250.66

The conductors that are not EXPECTED / REQUIRED to be part of the GES have to be sized per 250.122




Only if you choose to ignore the NEC requirements contained in 250.50



Again, the EGC between separate buildings does not perform the same function as the GEC inside a single building.

It is that simple.

the gec for the building is doing its job this new grounding electroce should not have to contribute to make the system any better or worsre what if the plumber had run the underground pipe in pvc?

 

[tryinghard]

OK I must be board to come back and keep trying. :roll:
Again, the EGC between separate buildings does not perform the same function as the GEC inside a single building.

It does not perform the same function as the GEC, but DOES meet the requirements of 250.50 to connect all the electrodes!

I use the example of a detached building because the new water line is separate from the existing. This new water line is not the electrode it is additional to other, because of this I believe a #4 cu would be compliant and safe as both the GEC and EGC to source.


I have obviously struck a cord with you iwire and for this I?m sorry. I sharing my opinions to help reveal the best application of NEC and in these sometimes I point out what I feel are inconsistencies. I point these out to cause interaction with other qualified individuals to again arrive at the best understanding for application. It is easy to make written mistakes even proofing, we only have the benefit of one sense ? sight ? so I am also trying to be careful not only with mistakes but also tones. I do not intend to badger or provoke dissension in any unfriendly way.

The original poster and inspector have revealed reasonable confusion with this topic along with a few others and myself. Please do not minimize our understanding and opinions, instead please do validate or interact in a helpful way.

 

[iwire]

It does not perform the same function as the GEC, but DOES meet the requirements of 250.50 to connect all the electrodes!

250.50 only requires the electrodes existing at the one building or structure to be connected together. 250.50 does not require that when I add a service in a neighborhood that I bond all the electrodes in the neighborhood to that new service.

I use the example of a detached building because the new water line is separate from the existing. This new water line is not the electrode it is additional to other,

No.

The grounding electrode system (GES) at the detached building are not in addition to the others, it is separate independent GES.

Look at the words in 250.50

"that are present at each building or structure served"

because of this I believe a #4 cu would be compliant and safe as both the GEC and EGC to source.

Lets forget about what may be safe or not, that has nothing to do with it. We are talking about the rules we have to follow.

I have obviously struck a cord with you iwire and for this I?m sorry.

You struck a cord only because you do not seem to listen, it seems you have made your mind up.

 

[iwire]

the gec for the building is doing its job this new grounding electroce should not have to contribute to make the system any better or worsre what if the plumber had run the underground pipe in pvc?

I agree, but that has nothing at all to do with the rules as written.

 

[tryinghard]

250.50 only requires the electrodes existing at the one building or structure to be connected together. 250.50 does not require that when I add a service in a neighborhood that I bond all the electrodes in the neighborhood to that new service.

I understand this

The grounding electrode system (GES) at the detached building are not in addition to the others, it is separate independent GES.

Look at the words in 250.50

"that are present at each building or structure served"

Well put, I see this

 

[tryinghard]

again I see both ways but more towards tryinghard because he see's it like me the code is there to make us install electrical in a safe manner and this is a safe manner,even though it isn't exactly by the book it's just a unique situation but still more than safe right?

Another twist that may help you.

To be ?an electrode? your new metal water pipe has to meet some criteria that includes 250.52(A)(1) & 250.53(D):

• be in direct contact with earth for at least 10?
• be electrically continuous to the point of connection to the GEC (which cannot be past 5? from the pipes entrance to the building)
• if it has interruptions like meters or filters, with or without gaskets, these must have bonding jumpers around them between the GEC?s point of origin and destination.
• If all the above is met the water pipe must also be supplemented by another electrode as in 250.52(A)(2) through (7).

250.53(D) states about the metal underground water pipe, ?Where used as a grounding electrode, metal underground water pipe shall meet the requirements of 250.53(D)(1) and (D)(2).? So it is arguable even if the criteria of 250.52(A)(1) is met it does not have to be used as an electrode, it will only be an electrode if you choose to use it and then you would have to intentionally supplement it with another to finish qualifying it as ?an electrode?.

I do not understand the NEC to require the water pipe to be ?an electrode? if any one of these items is missing and I also do not understand it to require you to install any missing portion to qualify its compliance. Therefore the water pipe in your situation can be bonded as per 250.104(A)(2).

 

[dwagener]

Another twist that may help you.

To be ?an electrode? your new metal water pipe has to meet some criteria that includes 250.52(A)(1) & 250.53(D):

• be in direct contact with earth for at least 10?
• be electrically continuous to the point of connection to the GEC (which cannot be past 5? from the pipes entrance to the building)
• if it has interruptions like meters or filters, with or without gaskets, these must have bonding jumpers around them between the GEC?s point of origin and destination.
• If all the above is met the water pipe must also be supplemented by another electrode as in 250.52(A)(2) through (7).

250.53(D) states about the metal underground water pipe, ?Where used as a grounding electrode, metal underground water pipe shall meet the requirements of 250.53(D)(1) and (D)(2).? So it is arguable even if the criteria of 250.52(A)(1) is met it does not have to be used as an electrode, it will only be an electrode if you choose to use it and then you would have to intentionally supplement it with another to finish qualifying it as ?an electrode?.

I do not understand the NEC to require the water pipe to be ?an electrode? if any one of these items is missing and I also do not understand it to require you to install any missing portion to qualify its compliance. Therefore the water pipe in your situation can be bonded as per 250.104(A)(2).

GREAT thanks for your help I really appreciate it. thanks again.