My house, built in 1962, has one grounding electrode: the metal plumbing system. Doesn't
meet Code now, but I'm pretty sure it did in 1962. The grounding electrode conductor is
attached to the plumbing directly inside the point at which it enters from the outside -- pretty
much completely on the opposite side of the house from the electrical service entrance.

In conjunction with a renovation project completely unrelated to the electrical system, I'm
going to have to temporarily disconnect and possibly relocate the grounding electrode
conductor.

I know that current Code:
(a) does not permit the metal water plumbing system to be the *only* grounding electrode;
(b) does not require the metal water plumbing to be a grounding electrode *at all*;
(c) requires that *if* it is used as a grounding electrode, the conductor must be attached
within 5 feet of the point of entrance to the building; and
(d) does require it to be bonded to *other* grounding electrode(s).

Here's what I propose to do:

(1) Sink a 10-foot grounding rod directly outside the service entrance, and connect an
appropriately-sized grounding conductor (AWG 4 for 200A service?) to it and the service
entrance panel. That will give me a grounding electrode other than the water pipes.
(2) Cut the existing grounding electrode conductor short, and bond it to the water pipes at
the most convenient location, about ten feet from the service entrance -- which is some forty
feet from the point at which the water pipe enters the building.

Am I correct in believing that this meets current Code?

Here's my reasoning: The connection to the water pipe is much more than the five-foot
minimum required if the water pipe is used as a grounding electrode -- but because the
system will be grounded to a grounding rod, *that* is the grounding electrode, *not* the
water pipes, which are merely *bonded* to the grounding electrode.

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 8:11:18 AM UTC-4, Doug Miller wrote:
My house, built in 1962, has one grounding electrode: the metal plumbing system. Doesn't
meet Code now, but I'm pretty sure it did in 1962. The grounding electrode conductor is
attached to the plumbing directly inside the point at which it enters from the outside -- pretty
much completely on the opposite side of the house from the electrical service entrance.

In conjunction with a renovation project completely unrelated to the electrical system, I'm
going to have to temporarily disconnect and possibly relocate the grounding electrode
conductor.

I know that current Code:
(a) does not permit the metal water plumbing system to be the *only* grounding electrode;
(b) does not require the metal water plumbing to be a grounding electrode *at all*;
(c) requires that *if* it is used as a grounding electrode, the conductor must be attached
within 5 feet of the point of entrance to the building; and
(d) does require it to be bonded to *other* grounding electrode(s).

Here's what I propose to do:

(1) Sink a 10-foot grounding rod directly outside the service entrance, and connect an
appropriately-sized grounding conductor (AWG 4 for 200A service?) to it and the service
entrance panel. That will give me a grounding electrode other than the water pipes.
(2) Cut the existing grounding electrode conductor short, and bond it to the water pipes at
the most convenient location, about ten feet from the service entrance -- which is some forty
feet from the point at which the water pipe enters the building.

Am I correct in believing that this meets current Code?

Here's my reasoning: The connection to the water pipe is much more than the five-foot
minimum required if the water pipe is used as a grounding electrode -- but because the
system will be grounded to a grounding rod, *that* is the grounding electrode, *not* the
water pipes, which are merely *bonded* to the grounding electrode.

you will need multiple ground rods. there a hammer tool that fits on a drill bit to put the rod in, leave the ground wire to the water line where it is, and install a jumper across the meter....

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:11:14 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

My house, built in 1962, has one grounding electrode: the metal plumbing system. Doesn't
meet Code now, but I'm pretty sure it did in 1962. The grounding electrode conductor is
attached to the plumbing directly inside the point at which it enters from the outside -- pretty
much completely on the opposite side of the house from the electrical service entrance.

In conjunction with a renovation project completely unrelated to the electrical system, I'm
going to have to temporarily disconnect and possibly relocate the grounding electrode
conductor.

I know that current Code:
(a) does not permit the metal water plumbing system to be the *only* grounding electrode;

True

(b) does not require the metal water plumbing to be a grounding electrode *at all*;

Not true, water pipe shall be bonded

(c) requires that *if* it is used as a grounding electrode, the conductor must be attached
within 5 feet of the point of entrance to the building; and

Entrance of the water pipe

(d) does require it to be bonded to *other* grounding electrode(s).

All available electrodes shall be used


Here's what I propose to do:

(1) Sink a 10-foot grounding rod directly outside the service entrance, and connect an
appropriately-sized grounding conductor (AWG 4 for 200A service?) to it and the service
entrance panel. That will give me a grounding electrode other than the water pipes.

OK

(2) Cut the existing grounding electrode conductor short, and bond it to the water pipes at
the most convenient location, about ten feet from the service entrance -- which is some forty
feet from the point at which the water pipe enters the building.

Just leave it the way it is


Am I correct in believing that this meets current Code?

Here's my reasoning: The connection to the water pipe is much more than the five-foot
minimum required if the water pipe is used as a grounding electrode -- but because the
system will be grounded to a grounding rod, *that* is the grounding electrode, *not* the
water pipes, which are merely *bonded* to the grounding electrode.

The 5' refers to the water pipe, not the distance from the electrical
service entrance. They are just minimizing the chance that a piece of
plastic will end up in that metal pipe. If this is still the good old
copper pipe all the way to the street, it will still be your best
electrode. The GEC to a rod only has to be 6 gauge, no matter how big
the service is, just because that is about all it will end up
grounding anyway. The water pipe, being the better electrode still
needs a full sized 250.66 conductor (#4 for typical 200a)

wrote in
:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:11:14 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

My house, built in 1962, has one grounding electrode: the metal
plumbing system. Doesn't meet Code now, but I'm pretty sure it
did in 1962. The grounding electrode conductor is attached to
the plumbing directly inside the point at which it enters from
the outside -- pretty much completely on the opposite side of
the house from the electrical service entrance.

In conjunction with a renovation project completely unrelated to
the electrical system, I'm going to have to temporarily
disconnect and possibly relocate the grounding electrode
conductor.

I know that current Code:
(a) does not permit the metal water plumbing system to be the
*only* grounding electrode;

True

(b) does not require the metal water plumbing to be a grounding
electrode *at all*;

Not true, water pipe shall be bonded

Bonded to the grounding electrode, right, I know that. Maybe I'm not using the correct
terminology here.

(c) requires that *if* it is used as a grounding electrode, the
conductor must be attached within 5 feet of the point of
entrance to the building; and

Entrance of the water pipe

Right, that's what I meant, sorry for not being specific.

(d) does require it to be bonded to *other* grounding
electrode(s).

All available electrodes shall be used

Yep.


Here's what I propose to do:

(1) Sink a 10-foot grounding rod directly outside the service
entrance, and connect an appropriately-sized grounding conductor
(AWG 4 for 200A service?) to it and the service entrance panel.
That will give me a grounding electrode other than the water
pipes.

OK

(2) Cut the existing grounding electrode conductor short, and
bond it to the water pipes at the most convenient location,
about ten feet from the service entrance -- which is some forty
feet from the point at which the water pipe enters the building.

Just leave it the way it is

I *can't*. I have to disconnect and move it, at least temporarily, for the other project -- it's in
the way. And that's going to be a pain in the neck: it's inside EMT. I was hoping to be able to
avoid reinstalling it in the same manner.


Am I correct in believing that this meets current Code?

Here's my reasoning: The connection to the water pipe is much
more than the five-foot minimum required if the water pipe is
used as a grounding electrode -- but because the system will be
grounded to a grounding rod, *that* is the grounding electrode,
*not* the water pipes, which are merely *bonded* to the
grounding electrode.

The 5' refers to the water pipe, not the distance from the
electrical service entrance. They are just minimizing the chance
that a piece of plastic will end up in that metal pipe.

Understood.

If this
is still the good old copper pipe all the way to the street, it
will still be your best electrode. The GEC to a rod only has to
be 6 gauge, no matter how big the service is, just because that
is about all it will end up grounding anyway. The water pipe,
being the better electrode still needs a full sized 250.66
conductor (#4 for typical 200a)

And that *must* be connected within 5' of where the water pipe enters the building,
regardless of the presence of any other grounding electrodes in the system?

In article ,
says...

My house, built in 1962, has one grounding electrode: the metal plumbing system. Doesn't
meet Code now, but I'm pretty sure it did in 1962. The grounding electrode conductor is
attached to the plumbing directly inside the point at which it enters from the outside -- pretty
much completely on the opposite side of the house from the electrical service entrance.

Here's what I propose to do:

(1) Sink a 10-foot grounding rod directly outside the service entrance, and connect an
appropriately-sized grounding conductor (AWG 4 for 200A service?) to it and the service
entrance panel. That will give me a grounding electrode other than the water pipes.
(2) Cut the existing grounding electrode conductor short, and bond it to the water pipes at
the most convenient location, about ten feet from the service entrance -- which is some forty
feet from the point at which the water pipe enters the building.

Am I correct in believing that this meets current Code?



Check with the local codes. Sometimes you may need 2 or more ground
rods spaced a certain distance apart due to poor soil conduction.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 9:52:25 AM UTC-4, Doug Miller wrote:
wrote in
:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:11:14 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

My house, built in 1962, has one grounding electrode: the metal
plumbing system. Doesn't meet Code now, but I'm pretty sure it
did in 1962. The grounding electrode conductor is attached to
the plumbing directly inside the point at which it enters from
the outside -- pretty much completely on the opposite side of
the house from the electrical service entrance.

In conjunction with a renovation project completely unrelated to
the electrical system, I'm going to have to temporarily
disconnect and possibly relocate the grounding electrode
conductor.

I know that current Code:
(a) does not permit the metal water plumbing system to be the
*only* grounding electrode;

True

(b) does not require the metal water plumbing to be a grounding
electrode *at all*;

Not true, water pipe shall be bonded

Bonded to the grounding electrode, right, I know that. Maybe I'm not using the correct
terminology here.

(c) requires that *if* it is used as a grounding electrode, the
conductor must be attached within 5 feet of the point of
entrance to the building; and

Entrance of the water pipe

Right, that's what I meant, sorry for not being specific.

(d) does require it to be bonded to *other* grounding
electrode(s).

All available electrodes shall be used

Yep.


Here's what I propose to do:

(1) Sink a 10-foot grounding rod directly outside the service
entrance, and connect an appropriately-sized grounding conductor
(AWG 4 for 200A service?) to it and the service entrance panel.
That will give me a grounding electrode other than the water
pipes.

OK

(2) Cut the existing grounding electrode conductor short, and
bond it to the water pipes at the most convenient location,
about ten feet from the service entrance -- which is some forty
feet from the point at which the water pipe enters the building.

Just leave it the way it is

I *can't*. I have to disconnect and move it, at least temporarily, for the other project -- it's in
the way. And that's going to be a pain in the neck: it's inside EMT. I was hoping to be able to
avoid reinstalling it in the same manner.


Am I correct in believing that this meets current Code?

Here's my reasoning: The connection to the water pipe is much
more than the five-foot minimum required if the water pipe is
used as a grounding electrode -- but because the system will be
grounded to a grounding rod, *that* is the grounding electrode,
*not* the water pipes, which are merely *bonded* to the
grounding electrode.

The 5' refers to the water pipe, not the distance from the
electrical service entrance. They are just minimizing the chance
that a piece of plastic will end up in that metal pipe.

Understood.

If this
is still the good old copper pipe all the way to the street, it
will still be your best electrode. The GEC to a rod only has to
be 6 gauge, no matter how big the service is, just because that
is about all it will end up grounding anyway. The water pipe,
being the better electrode still needs a full sized 250.66
conductor (#4 for typical 200a)

And that *must* be connected within 5' of where the water pipe enters the building,
regardless of the presence of any other grounding electrodes in the system?

From my reading of the code your problem comes down to this:

250.50 says that all grounding electrodes that *are present* must be
bonded together to form the grounding system. Since you have an incoming
metal water pipe, it's present and hence must be used as part of the
electrode system. That means that you have to bond to it within 5 ft
of where it enters.

If it were not for 250.50, you could use your ground rod, plus another
grounding electrode, eg another ground rod to form the grounding electrode
system and then bond the metal water pipe system to electrode system at
a convenient point near the panel. Sounds like that is what you want
to do, but 250.50 appears to say that you can't. 250.50 is a bit weird.
Suppose for example you had an old ground rod on the other side of the
house. That is also present, so strictly following the code, you'd
have to either pull that out of the ground or use it too?

That's my two cents.

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 11:17:02 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

....snip...

250.50 is a bit weird.
Suppose for example you had an old ground rod on the other side of the
house. That is also present, so strictly following the code, you'd
have to either pull that out of the ground or use it too?


Your description of "old ground rod" is not clear to me. Are you talking
about an abandoned ground rod with no conductor attached to it? If so, IMO
that would not have to be used. If it did, then all those spare grounds
rods stashed in the shed would also have to be used. Aren't they "present"
also?

I take 250.50 to mean that if an object is *used* as a grounding electrode
then it must be *bonded to all other grounding electrodes*. Just having a
piece of metal - even if the receipt says "ground rod" - pounded into
the ground doesn't make it a grounding electrode.

That's my two cents.

....and that's mine.

....and I could be wrong. ;-)

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:52:21 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in
:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:11:14 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

My house, built in 1962, has one grounding electrode: the metal
plumbing system. Doesn't meet Code now, but I'm pretty sure it
did in 1962. The grounding electrode conductor is attached to
the plumbing directly inside the point at which it enters from
the outside -- pretty much completely on the opposite side of
the house from the electrical service entrance.

In conjunction with a renovation project completely unrelated to
the electrical system, I'm going to have to temporarily
disconnect and possibly relocate the grounding electrode
conductor.

I know that current Code:
(a) does not permit the metal water plumbing system to be the
*only* grounding electrode;

True

(b) does not require the metal water plumbing to be a grounding
electrode *at all*;

Not true, water pipe shall be bonded

Bonded to the grounding electrode, right, I know that. Maybe I'm not using the correct
terminology here.



You "ground" to electrodes and you "bond" everything else, at least
that is the current terminology but they do get used interchangeably.

(c) requires that *if* it is used as a grounding electrode, the
conductor must be attached within 5 feet of the point of
entrance to the building; and

Entrance of the water pipe

Right, that's what I meant, sorry for not being specific.

(d) does require it to be bonded to *other* grounding
electrode(s).

All available electrodes shall be used

Yep.


Here's what I propose to do:

(1) Sink a 10-foot grounding rod directly outside the service
entrance, and connect an appropriately-sized grounding conductor
(AWG 4 for 200A service?) to it and the service entrance panel.
That will give me a grounding electrode other than the water
pipes.

OK

(2) Cut the existing grounding electrode conductor short, and
bond it to the water pipes at the most convenient location,
about ten feet from the service entrance -- which is some forty
feet from the point at which the water pipe enters the building.

Just leave it the way it is

I *can't*. I have to disconnect and move it, at least temporarily, for the other project -- it's in
the way. And that's going to be a pain in the neck: it's inside EMT. I was hoping to be able to
avoid reinstalling it in the same manner.

This is a unique thing about GECs and conduit, If you use metal, the
conduit has to be bonded at both ends and it becomes part of the
grounding electrode conductor. If it is plastic, obviously you don't
have anything but the wire. The problem is, if you use any metal at
all, it has to be all metal, bonded at both ends. This has to do with
the "choke" effect of metal pipe around a conductor.


Am I correct in believing that this meets current Code?

Here's my reasoning: The connection to the water pipe is much
more than the five-foot minimum required if the water pipe is
used as a grounding electrode -- but because the system will be
grounded to a grounding rod, *that* is the grounding electrode,
*not* the water pipes, which are merely *bonded* to the
grounding electrode.

The 5' refers to the water pipe, not the distance from the
electrical service entrance. They are just minimizing the chance
that a piece of plastic will end up in that metal pipe.

Understood.

If this
is still the good old copper pipe all the way to the street, it
will still be your best electrode. The GEC to a rod only has to
be 6 gauge, no matter how big the service is, just because that
is about all it will end up grounding anyway. The water pipe,
being the better electrode still needs a full sized 250.66
conductor (#4 for typical 200a)

And that *must* be connected within 5' of where the water pipe enters the building,
regardless of the presence of any other grounding electrodes in the system?

Yes.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:53:47 -0400, Ralph Mowery
wrote:

Check with the local codes. Sometimes you may need 2 or more ground
rods spaced a certain distance apart due to poor soil conduction.

That is the NEC. It says if you can not verify that one rod brings you
in under 25 ohms, you drive another one 6' or more away. After that,
it is probably not going to get much better with more rods so you are
done. A ground rod is the least capable electrode that is allowed.

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 11:32:11 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 11:17:02 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

...snip...

250.50 is a bit weird.
Suppose for example you had an old ground rod on the other side of the
house. That is also present, so strictly following the code, you'd
have to either pull that out of the ground or use it too?


Your description of "old ground rod" is not clear to me. Are you talking
about an abandoned ground rod with no conductor attached to it? If so, IMO
that would not have to be used. If it did, then all those spare grounds
rods stashed in the shed would also have to be used. Aren't they "present"
also?


The ones stored in the shed aren't permitted grounding electrodes because
they aren't in the ground. But one that meets code, at the house,
in the ground would be. Another example would be a Ufer. Suppose it's present, can I choose not to use it and just use two ground rods instead? 250.50 would seem to say that I have to use it, because it's present.



I take 250.50 to mean that if an object is *used* as a grounding electrode
then it must be *bonded to all other grounding electrodes*. Just having a
piece of metal - even if the receipt says "ground rod" - pounded into
the ground doesn't make it a grounding electrode.

That's my two cents.

...and that's mine.

...and I could be wrong. ;-)

Then that's what they should have said, but they didn't. I agree that what
you suggest would seem to be more reasonable. And if you interpret it that
way, then it would seem that Doug could do what he wants to do, ie ignore
that the metal water pipe is a grounding electrode that is present and
follow the more lenient bonding of the house metal water piping where that
piping is not part of the grounding electrode system, only bonded to it.
250.50 is the only thing I see that prevents him from doing what he wants
to do. But I also see Bud saying that the metal water piping must be
used, maybe he has a section other than 250.50 that says so?

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:32:08 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 11:17:02 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

...snip...

250.50 is a bit weird.
Suppose for example you had an old ground rod on the other side of the
house. That is also present, so strictly following the code, you'd
have to either pull that out of the ground or use it too?


Your description of "old ground rod" is not clear to me. Are you talking
about an abandoned ground rod with no conductor attached to it? If so, IMO
that would not have to be used. If it did, then all those spare grounds
rods stashed in the shed would also have to be used. Aren't they "present"
also?

I take 250.50 to mean that if an object is *used* as a grounding electrode
then it must be *bonded to all other grounding electrodes*. Just having a
piece of metal - even if the receipt says "ground rod" - pounded into
the ground doesn't make it a grounding electrode.

That's my two cents.

...and that's mine.

...and I could be wrong. ;-)



I have never heard of inspectors going looking for unused "made
electrodes" but the ones that are inherent in the building shall be
used. I have heard of it going so far that people have had to chip
into foundations to get to the rebar for a Ufer on new construction.
The reality is that the ufer connection is part of the foundation
inspection so it should be available after the concrete is placed.
In our area they allow connection to turned up rebar so it is not
likely to be broken off or stolen like you get with a copper wire.
The issue would be that the core gets poured solid along with the
other doweled cells.
They paint that block green.
http://gfretwell.com/electrical/ufer.jpg

OTOH if the inspector actually insists that the Ufer is totally
encased in concrete, the fix is to pour that cell full after the panel
is set and the GEC is run, near the end of construction when the
thieves are less likely to steal it and it is less likely to be broken
off.

On 7/25/2016 7:17 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:11:14 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

My house, built in 1962, has one grounding electrode: the metal plumbing system. Doesn't
meet Code now, but I'm pretty sure it did in 1962.

The NEC is a code for new work. What you have was compliant when
installed and thus has no problem with the current NEC.

I know that current Code:

(b) does not require the metal water plumbing to be a grounding electrode *at all*;

Totally false.


Not true, water pipe shall be bonded

Not true. Water pipe (10 or more feet metal in contact with the earth)
shall be used as an earthing electrode.

If the water pipe is not "10 or more feet" the interior water pipe shall
be "bonded" with slightly different rules.

This must have just been a misstatement. The rest of your answer
indicates the water pipe is an electrode. I agree with everything else
you wrote, including that ground rods suck.


Here's what I propose to do:

(1) Sink a 10-foot grounding rod

The NEC requires the resistance to earth for a ground rod to be 25 ohms
or less. [What happens if you connect a hot wire to a rod that is 25
ohms to earth? Ground rods suck.]

Virtually no one will measure the resistance. A second rod is installed
and the resistance can be anything.

Rods are minimum 8 ft length.

On 7/25/2016 7:52 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
wrote in

Just leave it the way it is

I *can't*. I have to disconnect and move it, at least temporarily, for the other project -- it's in
the way. And that's going to be a pain in the neck: it's inside EMT. I was hoping to be able to
avoid reinstalling it in the same manner.

If the conductor is #4 it "shall be protected if exposed to physical
damage". Usually additional protection is not required.

If run in a ferrous metal raceway, each end of the raceway shall be
bonded to the conductor (so the raceway is a parallel conductor). The
raceway and conductor form an electrical "choke" which raises the
impedance of the conductor. On a heavy fault a significant percentage of
the current will flow through the bonded raceway.

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:08:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:32:08 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 11:17:02 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

...snip...

250.50 is a bit weird.
Suppose for example you had an old ground rod on the other side of the
house. That is also present, so strictly following the code, you'd
have to either pull that out of the ground or use it too?


Your description of "old ground rod" is not clear to me. Are you talking
about an abandoned ground rod with no conductor attached to it? If so, IMO
that would not have to be used. If it did, then all those spare grounds
rods stashed in the shed would also have to be used. Aren't they "present"
also?

I take 250.50 to mean that if an object is *used* as a grounding electrode
then it must be *bonded to all other grounding electrodes*. Just having a
piece of metal - even if the receipt says "ground rod" - pounded into
the ground doesn't make it a grounding electrode.

That's my two cents.

...and that's mine.

...and I could be wrong. ;-)



I have never heard of inspectors going looking for unused "made
electrodes" but the ones that are inherent in the building shall be
used.

Sounds reasonable to me. So the underground water pipe and Ufer, if
present have to be used. How about:

A ground rod that happens to exist on the other side of the building?

A ground rod that's close to the panel?

Assuming neither of those is required to meet the min ground system
reqt, would either have to be used? Sounds to me like you're saying
the answer is no, or probably no, depending on the inspector?

wrote in :

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:52:21 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

And that *must* be connected within 5' of where the water pipe enters the building,
regardless of the presence of any other grounding electrodes in the system?

Yes.

Got it. I understand now. Thank you for your patient explanations.

For the other project, I *must* disconnect and relocate that conductor. It sounds like I'm
going to have to re-route it where it won't be in the way, and reconnect it to the same point
where it's connected now.

I think I probably should open the main breakers while I'm handling that: if the system is live,
and I'm holding a disconnected ground, a fault anywhere could kill me.

Doug Miller writes:
wrote in :


For the other project, I *must* disconnect and relocate that conductor. It sounds like I'm
going to have to re-route it where it won't be in the way, and reconnect it to the same point
where it's connected now.

I think I probably should open the main breakers while I'm handling that: if the system is live,
and I'm holding a disconnected ground, a fault anywhere could kill me.

Can't you disconnect the ground at the panel first, then disconnect the
other end from the pipe?

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

Doug Miller writes:
wrote in
m:


For the other project, I *must* disconnect and relocate that
conductor. It sounds like I'm going to have to re-route it where
it won't be in the way, and reconnect it to the same point where
it's connected now.

I think I probably should open the main breakers while I'm
handling that: if the system is live, and I'm holding a
disconnected ground, a fault anywhere could kill me.

Can't you disconnect the ground at the panel first, then
disconnect the other end from the pipe?

Of course I could, but then the entire system isn't grounded... and I'm not
sure that's much of an improvement.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 09:27:37 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:08:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:32:08 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 11:17:02 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:

...snip...

250.50 is a bit weird.
Suppose for example you had an old ground rod on the other side of the
house. That is also present, so strictly following the code, you'd
have to either pull that out of the ground or use it too?


Your description of "old ground rod" is not clear to me. Are you talking
about an abandoned ground rod with no conductor attached to it? If so, IMO
that would not have to be used. If it did, then all those spare grounds
rods stashed in the shed would also have to be used. Aren't they "present"
also?

I take 250.50 to mean that if an object is *used* as a grounding electrode
then it must be *bonded to all other grounding electrodes*. Just having a
piece of metal - even if the receipt says "ground rod" - pounded into
the ground doesn't make it a grounding electrode.

That's my two cents.

...and that's mine.

...and I could be wrong. ;-)



I have never heard of inspectors going looking for unused "made
electrodes" but the ones that are inherent in the building shall be
used.

Sounds reasonable to me. So the underground water pipe and Ufer, if
present have to be used. How about:

A ground rod that happens to exist on the other side of the building?

A ground rod that's close to the panel?

Assuming neither of those is required to meet the min ground system
reqt, would either have to be used? Sounds to me like you're saying
the answer is no, or probably no, depending on the inspector?

I am not quite sure why anyone would know a rod was there. We don't
carry metal detectors ;-)
They are supposed to be driven flush or below grade. There would also
be the question of how long it is. The Telcos and Satellite companies
have less than legal rods.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 17:47:17 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

wrote in :

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:52:21 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

And that *must* be connected within 5' of where the water pipe enters the building,
regardless of the presence of any other grounding electrodes in the system?

Yes.

Got it. I understand now. Thank you for your patient explanations.

For the other project, I *must* disconnect and relocate that conductor. It sounds like I'm
going to have to re-route it where it won't be in the way, and reconnect it to the same point
where it's connected now.

I think I probably should open the main breakers while I'm handling that: if the system is live,
and I'm holding a disconnected ground, a fault anywhere could kill me.

That is true and you should still be careful. I have a few amps on my
GEC with the main breaker open.
In a place where the water pipe is the primary electrode, that may not
be as likely. We are electrodes in sand here and there are significant
amounts of objectionable current floating around.

On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 18:03:29 -0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

Doug Miller writes:
wrote in
:


For the other project, I *must* disconnect and relocate that
conductor. It sounds like I'm going to have to re-route it where
it won't be in the way, and reconnect it to the same point where
it's connected now.

I think I probably should open the main breakers while I'm
handling that: if the system is live, and I'm holding a
disconnected ground, a fault anywhere could kill me.

Can't you disconnect the ground at the panel first, then
disconnect the other end from the pipe?

Of course I could, but then the entire system isn't grounded... and I'm not
sure that's much of an improvement.

It might be a good idea to run a jumper wire from the ground bus to
the GEC while you are working, in case something happens beyond your
control.