ivsenroute
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Bob, like the new avatar. did you buy a fluke?
Grounding to the Waterpipe
- Thread starter Energy-Miser
- Start date
- Status
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
Didn't but the example given is an easy one to check with a tracer and continuity test. I guess you could empty the pipe of water and do the same??? To keep in the anaolgy - this would be taking a closer squinting look, but short of waiting for the quack... :roll:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
:roll: One would assume permits would be taken out for modification. That is if plastic has become a popular change there - and that too would be a recent memory of the owner quite possibly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However if asked 'I have a metal water pipe - and my inspector said I need to bring some silly wire to it for something called an electrode? What should I do?' Your answer might be different... As it has in the bazzilion other threads where you have said 'if the electrode exists you need make it part of the electrode sytem.' In this case short of finding out for sure - he would be in violation of existing codes for his new work - the point of connection in this case is questionable.... Answer the question - or put a blanket on your donkey... CYA
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
Drain all the water out of the pipe and wait for it to dry, while the house is occupied? Piece of cake. :roll:e57 said:
So, we are seeing through the dirt by asking the homeowner if he recalls ever repairing the pipe outside and how, and assuming it got inspected back then if it was repaired, and that it was a professional plumber and not a DIY, and then assuming our continuity test is not giving us a false positive through some conductive (yet insufficient for a decent grounding path)...e57 said:
...sounds perfectly reasonable. :roll:
I think it's more reasonable to assume that the original installation was not a code violation, so therefore it is not a violation to leave it be. Today, I can connect anywhere if the pipe isn't an electrode. If Tony Two Times follows along behind me in three years, and finds my water bonding conductor landed a mile from the water entrance, then it would tickle me to discover that he decided that I had committed a code violation and assumed that it was an electrode; and went to all the trouble you are suggesting to go through over this nonsense.
I have seen similar stories over the years, not in regards to the water pipe but in regards to people freaking out and triple-guessing an original installation to death in general, sometimes in regards to my own work. It always amazing how many hoops people will jump through instead of just taking the easy path.
I need to throw in another :roll: , since we're having a eye-rolling fest.
- Location
- Massachusetts
My pockets are not that deep.:grin:
It is the companies.
http://www.dranetz-bmi.com/products/prodspec.cfm?prod=47
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
Yeah - why not? If it were not for the defensive additude - it could easily be reversed to say "Prove it isn't!" As opposed to saying "Prove it is." It is after-all his client wanting it connected <5'... If it were an inspector saying it - they may want you to 'prove it isn't'...
If the connection were made at <5' (or outside) would there be a debate? (Here or anywhere else - IMO it would not have.) That base would have been covered.
But if I hired someone to do something... Not that I would in this case. But if I were under the understanding that the code said one thing, and I got another - I might question it... (apparently this guy is) And yes - I would want you to prove it or explain why it was not done that way. (which apparently he did...) At that point - who's burden is it to prove it? (the existance of an electrode that may or may not be present - and that would be required to connected elsewhere if it did.)
As mentioned - my own home would be a violation is held to todays code - the service was done in the 60's... And it was allowed prior to 93 - Done in a way I remember doing... But - when I get around to redoing that service - I'm gonna be inspected for todays code for electrodes and bonding - not the 60's or 1931 when the house was built.
Around here at least - you would be asked to prove it is not an electrode. The burden of prove would be on you.
I get people who mention this in Home Inspections for sales... I can look at the green tag, the age of the service, or permit search for the service and tell you if it were allowed to be connected as such prior to the adoption of the 93 code. And yes - I have told them to leave it as is - fit's the code of date of installation. And likewise, is if it does not. (which is rare. Because modification to the service required inspection and green tag to reconnect and seal) And since HDPE water mains have only recently been allowed here and no plumber in his right mind would repair a water main without a permit (Because they charge heavy fees for them) - one can safely assume anything undistrurbed for more than a year is Galvy or copper and therefore an electrode...
But I think the larger question is:
With whom does the burden of proof lay?
And short of digging it up - how would you prove it?
Last edited:
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Hospital Master Electrician
I imagine I would fly these guys out to the job site to settle the debate, if the customer would rather pay for that than use a shovel.
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
Doubt it would be definitive either... "yep - theres a pipe about there...." - "What kind?" "Uh - I don't know..." (Had a simular experiance trying to locate conduits in slab on a hi-rise. You may have people more local though.I imagine I would fly these guys out to the job site to settle the debate, if the customer would rather pay for that than use a shovel.
But why should the customer pay? He was under the understanding he was paying for a job done to code... If (you're) not hitting every available electrode then you are not meeting the code - and if unwilling to confirm if you are or not - What happens then?
How 'bout a metal detector? These guys are a little more local to you - they apparently rent...
tryinghard
Senior Member
- Location
- California
When lightning strikes, or extreme overvoltage occurs, the electrodes will route these to earth even without the water pipe. IMO there?s nothing worse than counting on a plumber, handyman, DIY homeowner installing a water pipe as a qualified electrode.
- Location
- Massachusetts
It seems your opinion is if it looks to you at all like an electrode it is an electrode and must be used.
My opinion is, if it cannot, or will not be proved to be an electrode it is not an electrode and cannot be used as one.
Very simple, you assume it is, I assume it is not.
Still have no idea at all why your rules changed from my pool example to the OPs situation. Glad you are not an inspector, changing the rules day to day. :grin:
Bryan Price
Member
I dont see the argument, 250.50 says all available electrodes MUST be used.
**exception concrete encased on existing structures.
250.52A1 says it has to be within 5' of entrance of the building.
**exception industrial/commercial.....with qualified maintenance.......
**exception concrete encased on existing structures.
250.52A1 says it has to be within 5' of entrance of the building.
**exception industrial/commercial.....with qualified maintenance.......
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
I would err on the side of caution and assume it to be. As yes - I would have a very hard time proving to an inspector locally that it is not one. Not even hack plumbers would have used PVC for a main here previously. And doubtfull a HO is gonna tear out that much concrete - Typical to be under-slab/foundation and out to a meter on the other side of a city sidewalk at 24"
So do you never take an EGC to water in any existing building? If so how does that work for you?
I have not tried it... But every service inspection here has a few items top of the list - EVERY TIME! Water pipe connection is on EVERY ONE OF THEM. Even the one service this year where the main water was to be HDPE - the EI wanted to see 10' of copper in the ground...
We can agree to disagree - what else is new...
I didn't change the rules - I applied them slightly differently, I can do it at whim - I'm on my way to being an Inspector already....
TCN
Member
I missed something
I missed something
I may have missed something inn this lengthy discussion. But, I don't see why all the confusion. Using the water piping system as a ground is not required but permissable (250.52(A)(1). Where present it is required to be bonded, however 250.104(A). With the rods in place, the grounding is taken care of. Though, the rest of the metal systems in the house are left to be bonded. Again, I may have missed something already covered here, but are we confusing the difference between bonding and grounding?
I missed something
I may have missed something inn this lengthy discussion. But, I don't see why all the confusion. Using the water piping system as a ground is not required but permissable (250.52(A)(1). Where present it is required to be bonded, however 250.104(A). With the rods in place, the grounding is taken care of. Though, the rest of the metal systems in the house are left to be bonded. Again, I may have missed something already covered here, but are we confusing the difference between bonding and grounding?
One-eyed Jack
Senior Member
- Location
- Scotland Neck, NC
The one thing that I see missing in all of the post. If the metal water piping is used as the grd."electrode" You can use #6.250.66(a) If it is being "bonded" it must be #4 inside or outside protected or not. ref.250.53 (c) The op stated that he was going to use #4 to avoid the protection issue. Call it a bonded interior water pipe run #4 anywhere you can hit it.
If I read correctly (even though I don't agree with this), you must use 250.66 for bonding to the metal water piping regardless of it's being a grounded electrode or not.
250.52 for an electrode and 250.104 for "metal water piping" both reference 250.66 and both require the bonding to take place if the pipe is present.
250.52 for an electrode and 250.104 for "metal water piping" both reference 250.66 and both require the bonding to take place if the pipe is present.
Last edited:
One-eyed Jack
Senior Member
- Location
- Scotland Neck, NC
250.66 (a) that portion of the conductor that is the sole connection to the grounding electrode ie the water line if it is the "grounding electrode" We are splitting hairs here and I agree with 250.66. This was a question on my EC exam a hundred or so years ago. I got it right.
1793
Senior Member
- Location
- Louisville, Kentucky
- Occupation
- Inspector
In my area the AHJ will allow the use of a smaller, existing, H2O but I need to install 2 ground rods.
jwjrw
Senior Member
If its plastic coming in to the house we do not have to bond the interior pipes here. I see alot of copper with pex fittings tied on from past remodels and it would be hard to bond every section. Everyone seems to agree about bonding within 5ft if 10ft of more is in contact with the earth.
TCN
Member
That's for grounding. Bonding can be achieved anywhere in the system.
e57
Senior Member
- Location
- San Francisco, CA
The confusion is in the multiple opinions... Is it an electrode or not - if so prove it!?!
Not quite.... Where I and a few other disagree - is the calling of an unknown pipe an electrode. Close your eyes when you walk by it.... Sure you can't see underground - but since the code doesn't say to find out - some feel happy to just ignore the possible presence of it...
250.50 states that all electrodes present in/at a structure must become part of the grounding electrode sytem. In a previous wording of this code it would've included the CEE that would be present in just about every stucture on this hemispere - but wisely it was rethought so as to not cause un-necessary structural damage... But there is no such written exculsion for water pipes with 10'+ buried in earth - if there is a metal water pipe with >10' buried - it is an electrode and needs to be part of the electrode system. And therefore treated as an electrode, not just bonded willy nilly....
Is a pig a horse? Both are animals... If it is an electrode - it needs to be an electrode. IMO it is safer putting a saddle on a pig - even if you just confused it for a horse. But not putting a saddle on the horse is a code violation...
- Status