Two ground rods

Status
Not open for further replies.
ritelec said:
Where does it say that?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
250.53(A)(2)

The exception after this section essentially says if you can prove the first rod, pipe, or plate electrode has a resistance of less than 25 ohms then you don't need a second electrode.

This was changed (I believe in 2011). Before the change the way it was worded you could get away with not driving the second rod easier. You could easily ask an inspector to prove the resistance was more than 25 ohms, the way it was reworded the inspector is going to ask you to prove it is less than 25 ohms or you will drive the second ground rod.
 
Thank you.

I thought the 2nd was preferred as mentioned in past posts but thanks for pointing it out to me it in writing (2011).
 
ritelec said:
Where does it say that?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

At the time of the upgrade It has been customery to drive (2) ground rods rather that to try prove the 25 ohms to ground maximum and to add a grounding condictor to where the water service enters the structure usually where the water in metered.

2008 NEC?250.52 Grounding Electrodes.

(A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding.
(5) Rod and Pipe Electrodes. Rod and pipe electrodes shall not be less than 2.44 m (8 ft.) in length and shall consist of the following materials.
(a) Grounding electrodes of pipe or conduit shall not be smaller than metric designator 21 (trade size ?) and, where of iron or steel, shall have the outer surface galvanized or otherwise metal-coated for corrosion protection.
(b) Grounding electrodes of stainless steel, copper or zinc coated steel shall be at least 15.87 mm (? in.) in diameter, unless listed and not less than 12.70 mm (? in.) in diameter.

2008 NEC?250.56
Resistance of Rod, Pipe, and Plate Electrodes.
A single electrode consisting of a rod, pipe, or plate that does not have a resistance to ground of 25 ohms or less shall be augmented by one additional electrode of any of the types specified by 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8). Where multiple rod, pipe, or plate electrodes are installed to meet the requirements of this section, they shall not be less than 1.8 m (6 ft.) apart.

The requirement for a single electrode that does not have a resistance of 25 ohms or less to be augmented does not apply to any electrodes other than rod, pipe or plate. It is required to augment such an electrode with one additional electrode of any of the types specified by 250.52(A)(4) through 250.52(A)(8) so 250.52(A)(1) for underground metal water pipes, 250.52(A)(2) for metal frame of a building or structure, and 250.52(A)(3) for concrete-encased electrodes were deleted from the list of permissible electrodes to be used for augmenting the rod, pipe or plate electrodes.
 
templdl said:
At the time of the upgrade It has been customery to drive (2) ground rods rather that to try prove the 25 ohms to ground maximum and to add a grounding condictor to where the water service enters the structure usually where the water in metered.

2008 NEC?250.52 Grounding Electrodes.

(A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding.
(5) Rod and Pipe Electrodes. Rod and pipe electrodes shall not be less than 2.44 m (8 ft.) in length and shall consist of the following materials.
(a) Grounding electrodes of pipe or conduit shall not be smaller than metric designator 21 (trade size ?) and, where of iron or steel, shall have the outer surface galvanized or otherwise metal-coated for corrosion protection.
(b) Grounding electrodes of stainless steel, copper or zinc coated steel shall be at least 15.87 mm (? in.) in diameter, unless listed and not less than 12.70 mm (? in.) in diameter.

2008 NEC?250.56
Resistance of Rod, Pipe, and Plate Electrodes.
A single electrode consisting of a rod, pipe, or plate that does not have a resistance to ground of 25 ohms or less shall be augmented by one additional electrode of any of the types specified by 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8). Where multiple rod, pipe, or plate electrodes are installed to meet the requirements of this section, they shall not be less than 1.8 m (6 ft.) apart.

The requirement for a single electrode that does not have a resistance of 25 ohms or less to be augmented does not apply to any electrodes other than rod, pipe or plate. It is required to augment such an electrode with one additional electrode of any of the types specified by 250.52(A)(4) through 250.52(A)(8) so 250.52(A)(1) for underground metal water pipes, 250.52(A)(2) for metal frame of a building or structure, and 250.52(A)(3) for concrete-encased electrodes were deleted from the list of permissible electrodes to be used for augmenting the rod, pipe or plate electrodes.
Click to expand...
Like I said before - the way it was written you could ask an inspector demanding a second rod to prove the first one is more than 25 ohms, the way it is written now you must drive the second rod or prove yourself that the first one is indeed 25 ohms or less.

Here is 250.53(A)(2) from 2011 NEC:
(2) Supplemental Electrode Required. A single rod, pipe, or plate electrode shall be supplemented by an additional electrode of a type specified in 250.52(A)(2) through (A)(8). The supplemental electrode shall be permitted to be bonded to one of the following:




(1)
spacer.gif
Rod, pipe, or plate electrode

(2)
spacer.gif
Grounding electrode conductor

(3)
spacer.gif
Grounded service-entrance conductor

(4)
spacer.gif
Nonflexible grounded service raceway

(5)
spacer.gif
Any grounded service enclosure


Exception: If a single rod, pipe, or plate grounding electrode has a resistance to earth of 25 ohms or less, the supplemental electrode shall not be required.
Click to expand...

The intent of things did not really change, and the installation habits of many people did not change, but the wording made it more obvious a second rod is desired unless you prove the first rod is not low enough resistance.
 
kwired said:
Like I said before - the way it was written you could ask an inspector demanding a second rod to prove the first one is more than 25 ohms, the way it is written now you must drive the second rod or prove yourself that the first one is indeed 25 ohms or less.

Here is 250.53(A)(2) from 2011 NEC:


The intent of things did not really change, and the installation habits of many people did not change, but the wording made it more obvious a second rod is desired unless you prove the first rod is not low enough resistance.
Click to expand...

That's the point, don't challenge the 25ohm requirement and just drive 2 rods and call it a day.
 
kwired said:
I see, I don't care how smart the meter is, I was talking about getting rid of it altogether, has a tendency to make the cost of energy much less:happyyes:
Click to expand...

Enlighten me, how will the cost of energy be much less by getting rid of smart meters?
 
Hv&Lv said:
Enlighten me, how will the cost of energy be much less by getting rid of smart meters?
Click to expand...
It was a joke, and you still didn't get it:p

My initial request of removing the meter had nothing to do with whether it was a smart meter or not, I just wanted elimination of the meter period.:happyyes:
 
Around here...

Around here...

:happyyes:
If there is no meter or the meter has been bypassed (my people call it power theft), they add up all the OCPDs that were fed from the power theft, multiply that by the voltage, multiply that by the span time in hours the theft existed. That gives you the KWHs you get to buy. They usually arrange a payment plan. If you're nice they don't charge you with a misdemeanor and fine you or put you in jail. The fine is normally very small compared to the bill.

I once had an employer who, perhaps by accident, had a whole 100A/240V panel which was unmetered for years. (hooked up on the wrong side of the window CTs). They hinted that we could just make it disappear. My father had worked for the POCO for his entire life and my buddy's father for the gas company. Getting the meter to spin fed us as children. We suggested that they could contact the POCO, or in 30 days we would.

They finally decided to contact the POCO, we'd been talking to the Union Lawyer about the Whistler Blower Act, just in case.

I think when the negotiations were over it cost just north of $100,000.
 
kwired said:
It was a joke, and you still didn't get it:p

My initial request of removing the meter had nothing to do with whether it was a smart meter or not, I just wanted elimination of the meter period.:happyyes:
Click to expand...

I just wanted elimination of the meter period.:happyyes:
 
fmtjfw said:
:happyyes:
If there is no meter or the meter has been bypassed (my people call it power theft),
My father had worked for the POCO for his entire life and my buddy's father for the gas company. Getting the meter to spin fed us as children.
Click to expand...

Playing..........of course the utilities need to be payed for.
 
I knew,you knew,I knew........hahaha.

I'll be back in a bit.
Gotta crawl in my attic to see how that panel is doing that I tapped off the service drop.


Still playing.............
 
kwired said:
It was a joke, and you still didn't get it:p

My initial request of removing the meter had nothing to do with whether it was a smart meter or not, I just wanted elimination of the meter period.:happyyes:
Click to expand...

Doh! I missed it... :slaphead:
had a customer that had tapped into an underground area light service. He had an outbuilding wired that way for a few years before we caught on...:blink:
 
Right next to my property (out in the country) is a service that feeds two grain storage bins, located on same land with a quarter section (1/4 of square mile) crop land. This land used to be owned by someone outside the area and was leased to a local farmer that farmed that ground and stored crops in those bins. I used to get annoyed by noise of the crop drying fans as these guys would turn them on as soon as they harvest and they ran for months 24/7. I knew no one else ever did that as the grain usually doesn't need that much air over it unless it was really high moisture and even then if it were that bad they would do something else with it instead of just let it sit for months in that condition, and I knew the energy cost to run those fans had to be somewhat significant if they ran 24/7 for months at a time.

Well about three or four years ago this property was for sale - a neighbor just a couple miles away ended up buying it. I talked to him one day shortly after he bought it, when he called the POCO to get the service switched over to his name they told him they had no service at that location. No wonder the previous guys never shut the fans off - they were not being billed for the energy being used, and they had been using it for at least 10 years or so.

I noticed when this happened and before the POCO did come to "connect" the new owner the meter had been pulled and was not even a blank cover put in its place, Which is probably what the POCO did back when that service had been disconnected several years ago. They probably should have pulled the tap for the primary of the transformer also the way it looks.

Talking to the POCO supervisor at local office - who I am pretty good friends with, sounds like the owner assumed the renter was paying the electric bill, and the renter assumed the owner was paying the bill, or at least that is what they were telling the POCO. Never did hear how this ended up.
 
kwired said:
Right next to my property (out in the country) is a service that feeds two grain storage bins, located on same land with a quarter section (1/4 of square mile) crop land. This land used to be owned by someone outside the area and was leased to a local farmer that farmed that ground and stored crops in those bins. I used to get annoyed by noise of the crop drying fans as these guys would turn them on as soon as they harvest and they ran for months 24/7. I knew no one else ever did that as the grain usually doesn't need that much air over it unless it was really high moisture and even then if it were that bad they would do something else with it instead of just let it sit for months in that condition, and I knew the energy cost to run those fans had to be somewhat significant if they ran 24/7 for months at a time.

Well about three or four years ago this property was for sale - a neighbor just a couple miles away ended up buying it. I talked to him one day shortly after he bought it, when he called the POCO to get the service switched over to his name they told him they had no service at that location. No wonder the previous guys never shut the fans off - they were not being billed for the energy being used, and they had been using it for at least 10 years or so.

I noticed when this happened and before the POCO did come to "connect" the new owner the meter had been pulled and was not even a blank cover put in its place, Which is probably what the POCO did back when that service had been disconnected several years ago. They probably should have pulled the tap for the primary of the transformer also the way it looks.

Talking to the POCO supervisor at local office - who I am pretty good friends with, sounds like the owner assumed the renter was paying the electric bill, and the renter assumed the owner was paying the bill, or at least that is what they were telling the POCO. Never did hear how this ended up.
Click to expand...

1 guess... POCO lost their money. It is our responsibility to see that what goes out is being payed for.
 
Hv&Lv said:
1 guess... POCO lost their money. It is our responsibility to see that what goes out is being payed for.
Click to expand...

I'd guess there was some checking of services on the system that currently had no subscriber to make sure there was no usage going on.

It is common to see small services scattered around the country that supply wells in pastures for watering cattle. If there is no current subscriber it is common to see them remove the transformer but leave the service drop, meter socket, etc. If someone wants power they come hang a transformer and plug in a meter. A little suprising they did not do something like that on this service at some time. I think the land at one time was part of a conservation reserve program and there was no farm activity going on at that time and no need for use of the storage bins, and subscription of service was probably cancelled. POCO probably figured this would only be a few years and then service would be resumed. They probably still should have at least disconnected the transformer if they knew it would be long time without service, it served only the one service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top