water pipe cut off

[jim dungar]

Why are you trying to be so absurd?

I asked for your definition of a term which I had not heard before " pipe on the load end of the utility".

No you don?t have to cross property lines in order to install a bonding conductor to the metal water pipe in your neighbor?s yard as this would violate other laws.

You were the one saying that distance did not matter and that you "mow five acres". I was just trying to find out if you thought some limits did exist.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Oh yes I have many times. You just refuse to acknowledge it. There is no minimum or maximum distance mentioned anywhere in 250.50 so how far would you say would be the maximum distance any of the grounding electrodes in 250.52(A)(1) through (7) could be installed? Therein you will find your answer.
Whatever you say is the maximum distance that a ground ring, rod and pipe, other listed electrode, or a plate electrode can be installed from the building and still be present at is the same for the water pipe electrode.
...

Like I said before there is no code limit on the location of those electrodes. This idea would require the use of any metal underground water pipe anywhere in the world. I am sure that is not your intent or the intent of the code, but it is what your words tell me. There has to be some limit at which point the metal underground water pipe is not present at the building. As I have said in this thread, that point for me is inside the building, and for you it is somewhere else, but you won't tell us where that point is.

I am well aware that you don't agree, but if everyone agreed on the meaning of code rules, there would be no need for forums like this.

Given the safety issues to the water workers, I would support a plumbing code rule that would require a dielectic fitting outside the building and prohibit the electrical contractor from bonding around that fitting.

 

[jwelectric]

I asked for your definition of a term which I had not heard before " pipe on the load end of the utility".

You were the one saying that distance did not matter and that you "mow five acres". I was just trying to find out if you thought some limits did exist.

In my area the water meters are located close to the street or road so the meter readers can find them easily thus my referral to the load side of the meter (like the load side of a disconnect).

The use of my illustration of 5 acres is to show that present at can be different depending on what the subject matter being discussed. Both my yards, front and back are present at my home no matter how large they are and anything contained therein is also present at my home.

 

[jwelectric]

Like I said before there is no code limit on the location of those electrodes. This idea would require the use of any metal underground water pipe anywhere in the world.I am sure that is not your intent or the intent of the code, but it is what your words tell me. There has to be some limit at which point the metal underground water pipe is not present at the building. As I have said in this thread, that point for me is inside the building, and for you it is somewhere else, but you won't tell us where that point is.

Yes I have several times. If it is on your property then it is present is it not? The distance away would be the same for any electrode.

Given the safety issues to the water workers, I would support a plumbing code rule that would require a dielectic fitting outside the building and prohibit the electrical contractor from bonding around that fitting.

Finally we agree on something

 

[jim dungar]

In my area the water meters are located close to the street or road so the meter readers can find them easily thus my referral to the load side of the meter (like the load side of a disconnect).

So, you are using your personal experiences to influence the way you interpret the NEC. As you can see your attempt at adding an explanation created more confusion.

The use of my illustration of 5 acres is to show that present at can be different depending on what the subject matter being discussed. Both my yards, front and back are present at my home no matter how large they are and anything contained therein is also present at my home.

Given a piece of property, say 5 acres, with two different structures each with their own electric service entrance and water well (i.e. a machine shop and a house), separated by 200' and with no metallic connection between them: is it your contention that the two well casings need to be connected per 250.50?
Would all grounding electrodes on a university campus of +100 structures also need to be connected into a single grounding system?

 

[iwire]

In my area the water meters are located close to the street or road so the meter readers can find them easily

Here that would result in some pretty frozen meters, my meter in the basement is connected by a low voltage wire to a port outside my home near the electric meter. The water company can come by and read the meter via this port.

 

[jim dungar]

Here that would result in some pretty frozen meters, my meter in the basement is connected by a low voltage wire to a port outside my home near the electric meter. The water company can come by and read the meter via this port.

Ours are now 'radio' transmitters, they can get be read from the street. Now there is no need to trudge through a snow drift to get to the 'port'.

 

[iwire]

Ours are now 'radio' transmitters, they can get be read from the street. Now there is no need to trudge through a snow drift to get to the 'port'.

That may be the case here, I have never actually seen the water company read the meter, I just know I have a LV wire out to a little black box outside.

 

[jwelectric]

So, you are using your personal experiences to influence the way you interpret the NEC. As you can see your attempt at adding an explanation created more confusion.

Sorry about that but if the meter is in the basement and supplied by metal water pipes the metal water pipes are electrodes per 250.52(A)(1)

Given a piece of property, say 5 acres, with two different structures each with their own electric service entrance and water well (i.e. a machine shop and a house), separated by 200' and with no metallic connection between them: is it your contention that the two well casings need to be connected per 250.50?
Would all grounding electrodes on a university campus of +100 structures also need to be connected into a single grounding system?

No only the one that are supplying that building

 

[George Stolz]

No only the one that are supplying that building

You can't play the middle - the NEC says "present at" not "supplying".

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes I have several times. If it is on your property then it is present is it not? The distance away would be the same for any electrode.
...

This is where we differ. In my opinion "present on the property" is not the same as 'present at the building".
I also understand that we will never agree on this issue...just like many others we have discussed in the past.
I do enjoy these discussions, even when we can't agree. I hope the readers do too.

 

[ptonsparky]

You can't play the middle - the NEC says "present at" not "supplying".

:thumbsup:

 

[jwelectric]

You can't play the middle - the NEC says "present at" not "supplying".

So you are saying that if it is supplying the building it wouldn't be present at that building?

 

[ActionDave]

This is where we differ. In my opinion "present on the property" is not the same as 'present at the building".....

This is a very good distinction. I do not think the water pipe would have to enter the building to be present, but I can not buy the notion that anywhere on the property makes it present.

I can't think of a good word other than "present", but don't like the idea of making a specific distance requirement.

Right now I'm with George, this is unsolvable.

 

[jwelectric]

Dave, should anyone want to contact NFPA for an informal interpretation I do believe they will find that they also say it does not have to enter the building but they won?t give a distance either.

 

[iwire]

So you are saying that if it is supplying the building it wouldn't be present at that building?

I can't speak for George but speaking for myself yes.

There are miles of pipes supplying water to my home, very few are present at my home.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

I do enjoy these discussions, even when we can't agree. I hope the readers do too.

We do! :happyyes:

FWIW my two cents: I don't think the intent of the code is to make us bond a metal pipe that may be 100s of feet away but switched to plastic to enter the building, or bond an abandoned water pipe that doesn't near the building.

There are two qualifications to make this pipe an electrode. #1 it must have the 10ft of contact, #2 it must be electrically continuous or made electrically continuous around insulating joints etc.

 

[jwelectric]

I can't speak for George but speaking for myself yes.

There are miles of pipes supplying water to my home, very few are present at my home.

There is miles of transmission lines all around my home but only one set of wires supplies my home and believe it or not it is present also.

I would bet that the water pipe that is supplying you home is also present somewhere out there.

I think you are trying to stretch the issue with such a statement but I understand.

 

[rbalex]

Our language is replete with ambiguity and the Section in question is sparse on specificity of what “is present” means. The previous, “is available” was probably a much better phrase but its distance limits could be stretched as well. The phrase was only revised to insure that rebar couldn’t be covered immediately and make it “unavailable.” But the Exception clearly shows that bonding the rebar isn’t really essential for safety.

Since the bulk of my experience is multi-structural industrial design, it eventually became clear to me long ago that a vast grounding electrode system network was basically useless – for safety purposes. Bonding is the critical safety issue. In fact, my very first Proposal was to suggest Art 250 be renamed “Bonding and Grounding” from simply “Grounding.” It as rejected and it took another Code cycle for the error of my ways to be revealed – I got the order wrong.

Other than cases where workers may become exposed to unbounded electrodes and some lightning protection schemes there is very little real need to establish much more than the initial grounding electrode. CMP5 was dominated by the telecom community for over 40 years and the real reason for bonding all the electrodes was it was perceived that it benefited the signal grounds for telecom systems. That isn’t necessary any more either but we now have an intransigent history much like 42 circuit max panels was – no one knows why really do it, but changing the requirements are scary.

 

[PaulAbernathy]

Hello All,

This will be my last post as I do not plan to visit this site any longer. However, in support of Mr. Whitt I will post an informal opinion from the NFPA which mirrors my belief as well. In the end many things have to be taken care of my the AHJ but opinions being what they are we also have to exercise what we call a practical intent of all rulings.

Here is the informal opinion ( I note that this is informal and is in no way directed towards the NFPA's opinion one way or the other )

* Here was the original question supplied to the NFPA:


Name: Paul W. Abernathy
Member # xxxxxxx


Section 250.50

Q: A metal water pipe that is 10 feet in contact with earth and changes to nonmetallic before entering the building. Is the metal water pipe PRESENT at the building therefore required to be used as an electrode?


Below is there response.....

Thank you for your email concerning the National Electrical Code?.

As discussed via telephone, 250.50 requires all grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are present at each building or structure served is required to be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. The NEC does not define “present at the building”, such questions should be directed to the authority having jurisdiction. Section 250. 52 (A)(1) requires metal underground water pipes in direct contact with the earth for 10 feet or more (including any metal well casing bonded to the pipe) to be electrically continuous or made electrically continuous by bonding to be used as a grounding electrode.

Jean M. Blanc
Associate Electrical Engineer
National Fire Protection Association

Important Notice: This correspondence is not a Formal Interpretation issued pursuant to NFPA Regulations. Any opinion expressed is their personal opinion of the author, and does not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its Technical Committees. In addition, this correspondence is neither intended, nor should be relied upon, to provide professional consultation or services.

In closing, I would like to thank Mr. Blanc for his informal opinion and I respect it and welcome it. If others on this forum would also learn from this then this forum would be a place new people would come but alas it is consitantly the model of belittling and negtive attacks so I respectly request all my accounts to be deleted and wish the new Chief Mod the best of luck in bringing order to the madness. The point being made is...Mr. Whitt has an opinion that others do not agree with yet the NFPA seems to agree with Mr. Whitt in nature. We agree that it may not be practical to do something but due to the nature of the code it does not mean that is not what it says...if we want it to say something different then we have to change the code.......get involved !