Question on 5ft rule 250.52

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

KWH

Senior Member
The job I am on now lists a #3/0 gec ran to the main water pipe. The plumber installed plastic for his main then changed over to copper , are you still required to be within 5ft or can you attach it anywhere with it still being accessible, also concerning wire size is a #3/0 still required or would a #4 be sufficient. I have a ufer ground and 2 ground rods, this is a wood framed building with one steel i-beam supported by several support posts. The posts are not buried in the ground or concrete, set up more like a pole base. The print is calling for a #3/0 for the building steel also but like the water main does this meet the requirements for a gec.
 
If it is not an electrode 250.52 is out of the picture.

250.104 Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural
Steel.

(A) Metal Water Piping. The metal water piping system
shall be bonded as required in (A)(1), (A)(2), or (A)(3) of
this section. The bonding jumper(s) shall be installed in
accordance with 250.64(A), (B), and (E). The points of
attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be accessible.

(1) General. Metal water piping system(s) installed in or
attached to a building or structure shall be bonded to the
service equipment enclosure, the grounded conductor at the
service, the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient
size, or to the one or more grounding electrodes used.
The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance with Table
250.66 except as permitted in 250.104(A)(2) and (A)(3).
Click to expand...

Size per 250.66 and no restrictions on where you connect to the water line.
 
Can anybody shed light on why the 250.104 conductor is sized per 250.66
when in essence we are only bonding metallic piping.
 
augie47 said:
Can anybody shed light on why the 250.104 conductor is sized per 250.66
when in essence we are only bonding metallic piping.
Click to expand...

:)

I know we have talked about it before but I don't think anyone came up with the reason.

It would be great if someone knew why.
 
iwire said:
:)

I know we have talked about it before but I don't think anyone came up with the reason.

It would be great if someone knew why.
Click to expand...
Because the proposal came from the Copper Developement Association:)
Actually I don't think there is any reason for the interior bond to be sized by 250.66, other than the code says it has to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top