Grounding to the Waterpipe

[ivsenroute]

Inspector's view:

You installed a 200A service with 2 ground rods.

Only a #6 copper needs to be run to the rods which are your electrodes.

The water pipe is now not an "electrode" and needs a #4 copper to bond it. It can be bonded at any point.

If you want to call your water pipe that is underground and verified to have 10' underground an electrode (why would you at this point) then you have to make your GEC connection within 5' of the entrance of the metallic water pipe.

Sounds like you are good to go if you simply bond the H20 with #4 at the nearest convenient point.

 

[macmikeman]

They have ears to hear but cannot hear. They have eyes to see but cannot see. Read 250.52. INTERIOR metal piping MORE than 5' from the point of entrance cannot be used to satisfy 250.52. The code says nothing about exterior connection distances. Hook up your water pipe electrode 500 feet away from the point of entry to the building and you meet code as long as you connect on the exterior. So we do not all agree on the absoluteness of the 5 foot rule, matter of fact, I strongly disagree. Exterior connections have no length limitations. And now for the happy calming smile :roll::grin:

 

[e57]

Inspector's view:

You installed a 200A service with 2 ground rods.

Only a #6 copper needs to be run to the rods which are your electrodes.

The water pipe is now not an "electrode" and needs a #4 copper to bond it. It can be bonded at any point.

So how is water 10' or greater not an electrode - because you feel like it??? (The OP didn't want to do it because it was too hard/far away...) So what you're saying no one need to hit the water pipe as an electrode EVER in your jurisdiction if they throw some dirt on it???? If it is greater than 10' - it is an electrode - verification or not - nothing in the code says you need to verify it - just that if it is present that it becomes part of the electrode system. Granted in '93 you could connect anywhere and it would be just fine - but that is not what the code actually says anymore. It would still be an electrode weather you call it one or not - once you bond the pipe (anywhere), unless it is electrically isolated from that underground section of pipe - it will act as electrode whether you like it or not... Whether you know it or not as well... So - IMO (And how this is interpeted here..*) unless you want to dis-prove it as an electrode - then it is one, and treated as one.

*PVC piping was never allower prior to this last year here - so any water main that did'nt have a permit issued prior to '08 will be galvy or copper...

~~~~
Sounds like you are good to go if you simply bond the H20 with #4 at the nearest convenient point.

Until the day someone does dig it up - and at some point - someone will. The day they do - and there is >10' - you have a code violation... If it is <10' - you CYA'd. Will you be alive to see it - maybe not.... If you are - what do you say? Make some analogy about trees falling in the woods????

 

[iwire]

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.

I would err on the side of caution and assume it to be.

But IMO you are not 'erring on the side of caution'. You are assuming it is an electrode when it may not be.

Which brings me back to my pool example which you said that you could not assume, you would have to prove.

 

[iwire]

If it is greater than 10' - it is an electrode - verification or not - nothing in the code says you need to verify it -

The NEC does not say an inspector has to verify NM is supported correctly but we both know they do.

There is nothing in the NEC that says an inspector has to verify the connection of a CEE before the pour but it is required here. I can not just tell the inspector after the pour 'yeah it's done'.

just that if it is present that it becomes part of the electrode system.

You cannot say it is present when you do not know for a fact it is present.

 

[e57]

But IMO you are not 'erring on the side of caution'. You are assuming it is an electrode when it may not be.

Which brings me back to my pool example which you said that you could not assume, you would have to prove.

99.99% of the time in my area it will be an electrode. As mentioned plastic piping has only a limited, and not very popular use here.

What puzzles me Bob - on numerous occasions you would say if the electrode is present it would need to be connected, and I assume as an electrode.... The puzzling part is the contradiction of allowing an electrode to not be connected - since it can not 'readily' be confirmed at a glance that it is one or not. Sounds - well - lazy....

~~~~~~~~~~~
You cannot say it is present when you do not know for a fact it is present.

And likewise - you can also not say it is not present when again there is no basis for fact... However, when you treat is as one - the donkey is covered - if it is one or not. And with the types of odds available in my area - it would be best, and required by the inspector whether I like it or not. They would not bother to have it confirmed - just installed as an electrode up front - no questions...

Is it any less safe - IMO no... Years ago this would not be an issue - more than 5' connection was the norm... Only plastic plumbing changed that...

Is it what the code says... YES if it is present - it needs to be an electrode - the only exception in 250.50 is for CEE's. The question over confirming it's presence is the question....