Removing GEC

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kirk62

Member
Location
Boston Ma
Hi,
I am a new member here so I hope this is the correct forum. I live out in Ma (lic journeyman). I recently received a call from a customer who says the water dept. has informed him he must remove his grounding electrode conductor (GEC) from their incoming water pipe. I asked if it was because they were running a new pipe, replacing the old pipe or changing the incoming pipe to PVC. However I was told it is simply because they believe that using the incoming water pipe as the grounding electrode (GE) is causing the water pipe to corrode and pit, creating leaks between the meter and out in the street. Has anyone ever heard of this b-4??
I certainly have no problem driving a supplemental ground rod/rods. However even if I did so my interpretation of 250.52 (A)1 is that if I have a metallic water pipe in contact with 10 feet of earth it is a GE and if present all defined GE's shall bonded together to form a single GE system. So would I not required to at least put a wire (bonding) right back(including a meter jumper) where they are saying to take the GEC off?? It sounds like they are doing this all over town. My concern is that if I knowingly violate the code I would be liable for any problem that might ensue.Any help would be appreciated

Thanks
 
I think you need to take this to the electrical inspector. This is not your fight. IMO, it is an NEC violation they are asking you to do. What proof do they have that the GEC connection is causing the electrolosys (sp?) on the pipe. That is usually a result of DC current flowing between two dissimilar metals.
 
I did a 200 amp. upgrade and service relocation last week, the inspector (new to me) specifically told me that they would prefer I didn't bond to the incoming copper water line and did rods only. I asked him if I would fail if I chose to bond to the water line anyway. He repeated that he prefered I didn't but would not fail it.

I didn't push it, I just bonded the water pipes and called it a day.
 
They are right when they say that it can cause corrosion problems. Some places like the NYC Transit do not ground their systems to the earth because of the electrolysis on the structural metal. It's not a code violation at this point in time but it may come to that eventually. Using the meter socket enclosures for connecting the GEC can also cause a conflict with the electric utility companies. It's best not to touch someone else's equipment unless they give you permission to do so.
 
Hi,
Thanks for the input. I did try to contact the inspector of wires yesterday and in fairness spoke to his secretary not him. She indicated that the town had already discussed this and did not view this as any sort of problem. So before I spoke to him personally, I wanted to see if I was out of line thinking this is a violation or if there had been some code change I had missed. I really don't care to argue with him, so if this is the case I will just pass on the job.

Thanks
 
Don't you have to bond the interior piping regardless? And isn't it going to be bonded anyway if you have an electric water heater? Seems unsafe not to.

But I could see properly bonding the interior piping and using a nonmetallic segment, dielectric coupling, or something to isolate the outside piping from the bonded piping. If this coupling was within 10' of the house, then wouldn't that make it so you don't have to use the pipe as an electrode?
 
Hi,
I completely agree that the interior piping must be bonded and would create a potentially hazardous situation if this was not done. I also agree that a dielectric fitting sounds like a good idea. Specifically if it was installed in such a way as to prevent the incoming water pipe from falling under the 10' rule as it would eliminate the requirement to treat it as a grounding electrode. Honestly, I am completely in the dark as to whether AC current can cause galvanic corrosion but have heard of this with DC systems. Also Eric sorry, I probably wasnt clear enough in the initial post but when I mentioned jumping the meter I meant the water meter (not the meter socket). Thanks for all the input.

Kirk
 
In my opinion, they are asking for you to do an obvious non-compliant modification.

I'd suggest that they install an insulating joint in the water pipe, so it's their doing.
 
Hi,
Spoke to the inspector of wires today. He does not advocate trying to eliminate the incoming water pipe as a GEC. He does like the idea of adding a supplemental GEC (rods) but notes that the incoming water pipe would still need to be bonded as per 250-52. It seems this all came down from the water dept. and was done w/out consulting him. So thanks for everyone for help I appreciate it.
 
What proof does the water dept have to make their argument legit?

Mass electrical code requires you to use the incoming water pipe as an electrode. We operate under the Mass Electrical code statewide. Cities and towns can not make up their own code standards on their own. The only way they can change this is to lobby either the NFPA or the MA code making panel and proove that using that pipe is an issue. I don't see that happening.
 
ElectricianJeff said:
I did a 200 amp. upgrade and service relocation last week, the inspector (new to me) specifically told me that they would prefer I didn't bond to the incoming copper water line and did rods only. I asked him if I would fail if I chose to bond to the water line anyway. He repeated that he prefered I didn't but would not fail it.

I didn't push it, I just bonded the water pipes and called it a day.
Click to expand...


Do you work under the "inspectors preference" code? :-?
 
iwire said:
I believe it takes a DC voltage to cause electrolysis.
Click to expand...


I have heard and read the same thing.

There are 4 gazillion, 3 trillion, 52 billion, 502 million and 1 buildings that have a water ground. Why is it the water companies do not have this issue with all homes...I call it a cop-out.
There is much documentation to disprove what your water company is stating online, just google for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top