# Ground rod distance from foundation?



## Pcinspector1

Is there a code section that can be cited for how far the grounding rod can be from the foundation, I always thought it was 2-ft. I got a project where it's 7-ft out from the foundation and have a concern it could be severed. 

Please reference a code number if you could. I'm hanging may hat on "I'm the AHJ!" Afraid I might have to eat that hat.


----------



## cda

Are they running the wire underground to the rod??

Installed or proposed? 

Some reason they will not play nice and move it??


----------



## Pcinspector1

cda, 
Installed with wire under the ground to the rod 7-ft out from foundation. Said it was a "mother" getting it driven into the soil. Claimed they will have to buy another rod. It daisy chained with the first rod whit-in 2-ft of the foundation.


----------



## steveray

They need to be 6' apart (or technically maybe the length of the rod.) Nothing on proximity of building....And if they hit footing steel, they don't need the rods....GEC is continuous from panel to rod to rod? No breaks?


----------



## Rick18071

Nothing about distance from foundation. It could even be in the basement floor. What do you do if there is no building like a sign?


----------



## cda

“”””Itdaisy chained with the first rod whit-in 2-ft of the foundation.”””

It is or they would have to if another one is required??


----------



## Pcinspector1

Sorry for the typo's, a typist or a piano player I'm not!

So do you think just being the AHJ is enough to declare the rod at 7-feet out from the house is a bit to far and the GW is endanger of being severed by a mower?

Rick18071, That's different question but thank you for your response, that there's nothing regulating the distance from the foundation. I can't find any thing but a codes class book that sez: "It's a good practice" to keep the rod around 2-ft of the foundation on a residential service.


----------



## ICE

The entire GEC requires protection from physical damage.  If the rod is sticking out of the ground it must be free from exposure to physical damage.  So if it is accessible it is susceptible.


----------



## Mark K

Is it possible that the inspector is imposing his preferences as opposed to what the code says?

While grounding may be more effective is the several ground rods are properly spaced what is critical is the resistance.  If only one ground rod is needed then the fact that two are provided close together is irrelevant.


----------



## steveray

a. Where protected by a ferrous metal raceway, grounding electrode conductors shall be electrically bonded to the ferrous metal raceway at both ends.
b. An 8 AWG grounding electrode conductor shall be protected with rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid polyvinyl chloride (Type PVC)
nonmetallic conduit, rigid thermosetting resin (Type RTRC) nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing or cable armor.
c. Where not protected, 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor shall closely follow a structural surface for physical protection. The supports shall be spaced not
more than 24 inches on center and shall be within 12 inches of any enclosure or termination.
d. Where the sole grounding electrode system is a ground rod or pipe as covered in Section E3608.2, the grounding electrode conductor shall not be required to
be larger than 6 AWG copper or 4 AWG aluminum. Where the sole grounding electrode system is the footing steel as covered in Section E3608.1.2, the
grounding electrode conductor shall not be required to be larger than 4 AWG copper conductor.


----------



## steveray

E3610.2 Securing and protection against physical damage.
Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its
enclosure shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it
is carried. Grounding electrode conductors shall be permitted
to be installed on or through framing members. A 4 AWG or
larger conductor shall be protected where exposed to physical
damage. A 6 AWG grounding conductor that is free from
exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run
along the surface of the building construction without metal
covering or protection where it is and securely fastened to the
construction; otherwise, it shall be in rigid metal conduit,
intermediate metal conduit, rigid polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
nonmetallic conduit, reinforced thermosetting resin (RTRC)
nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing or cable armor.
Grounding electrode conductors smaller than 6 AWG shall be
in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) nonmetallic conduit, reinforced thermoseting
resin (RTRC) nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic
tubing or cable armor.
Bare aluminum or copper-clad aluminum grounding electrode
conductors shall not be used where in direct contact
with masonry or the earth or where subject to corrosive conditions.
Where used outside, aluminum or copper-clad aluminum
grounding electrode conductors shall not be installed
within 18 inches (457 mm) of the earth.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Mark K said:


> Is it possible that the inspector is imposing his preferences as opposed to what the code says?


 *No, *I will allow after the contractor covers with additional earth.

Did you provide a code? *No.* see the first post with the question?



Pcinspector1 said:


> *Is there a code section that can be cited for how far the grounding rod can be from the foundation, *



I'm looking for a distance from foundation, and it appears there is not one.

Sorry for being so curt.

Thanks for playing!


----------



## cda

Tell them to test it for proper grounding


----------



## rgrace

NEC 250.64 (B) provides securing and protection from physical damage for the grounding electrode conductor. This seems to be what most of these posts are geared to, but these do not appear to address the original concern. cda started down the right path, but the thread got sidetracked. What I read of the original concern is that a ground rod is seven feet from the structure; is this permitted, and how do I ensure that the grounding electrode conductor is protected between the house to the electrode connection (doesn't get severed)? That is covered (pun intended) in NEC Table 300.5. The grounding electrode conductor will be buried between the structure and the electrode connection, so Column 1, 2 or 3 would apply. The burial depth and method itself provides protection from physical damage between the structure and the electrode connection. Based on this, the electrode placement from the structure can be seven feet out or seventy feet out.


----------



## conarb

I believe it's a utility requirement here, our PG&E provives a handout showing the number and placement of ground rods for each address, the number is dependent upon soils, I built homes a mile apart, one required one ground rod and the other two, I called PG&E and they said it was due to a difference in soils and sent me diagrams that had placement on it.


----------



## rgrace

Well, that's interesting ! The service providers around here want nothing to do with the grounding electrode systems, they regulate to the service point and that's it. What would PG&E say about this post? Would they permit the seven foot distance between structure and electrode along with providing requirements for the protection of the electrode conductor, or would they rely on NEC for all but the location and number of electrodes?


----------



## conarb

rgrace said:


> Well, that's interesting ! The service providers around here want nothing to do with the grounding electrode systems, they regulate to the service point and that's it. What would PG&E say about this post? Would they permit the seven foot distance between structure and electrode along with providing requirements for the protection of the electrode conductor, or would they rely on NEC for all but the location and number of electrodes?


 I don't know, what I do know is PG&E has a map of ground conditions that they use to determine the number of rods needed, when you build a house and contact them they give you a one page handout, on that handout is a drawing showing the location of the ground rods.  Why don't you contact the utility in question and ask them if they have such a handout?


----------



## Mark K

While the information from the utility may be informative I would like to know the basis for any authority the utility has to regulate what gets done on the other side of the service point.  I would suggest that they have no authority to compel.

On the other hand if the adopted electrical code has provisions defining the number of ground rods based on the soil type and if the utility recommendations were based on that criteria he information from the utility may help the builder understand what is required by the electrical code.


----------



## conarb

Mark K said:


> While the information from the utility may be informative I would like to know the basis for any authority the utility has to regulate what gets done on the other side of the service point.  I would suggest that they have no authority to compel.



The utility requests a copy of the service clearance from the AHJ, then sends there own inspector out to check everything including grounding,  I'd venture to say that the average inspector knows nothing about soils types and number of ground rods.  For instance, on a remodel I recently had the PG&E require a larger ground cable from the ground rods to the service and larger conductors all the way to the pole on the street, that was after final inspection and a $35,000 additional cost because of jackhammering through sandstone to get a larger conduit under the driveway.


----------



## Mark K

Conarb

You have described what the utility did, but it is still unclear what legal authority the utility had to require something beyond the service point.


----------



## conarb

Mark K said:


> Conarb
> 
> You have described what the utility did, but it is still unclear what legal authority the utility had to require something beyond the service point.



Mark:

They just don't give you service if you don't comply with their regulations, another example is they have regulations in their "Green Book" that describe the location of the main service, how far above the ground, how far from corners, how far from gas meters, etc., if you don't comply with their regulations they don't hook up your service, similarly the AHJ has no code regulations governing the location of meters.


----------



## ICE

rgrace said:


> NEC 250.64 (B) provides securing and protection from physical damage for the grounding electrode conductor. This seems to be what most of these posts are geared to, but these do not appear to address the original concern. cda started down the right path, but the thread got sidetracked. What I read of the original concern is that a ground rod is seven feet from the structure; is this permitted, and how do I ensure that the grounding electrode conductor is protected between the house to the electrode connection (doesn't get severed)? That is covered (pun intended) in NEC Table 300.5. The grounding electrode conductor will be buried between the structure and the electrode connection, so Column 1, 2 or 3 would apply. The burial depth and method itself provides protection from physical damage between the structure and the electrode connection. Based on this, the electrode placement from the structure can be seven feet out or seventy feet out.



300.5 (B) Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage.
Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its enclosure shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it is carried. Grounding electrode conductors shall be permitted to be installed on or through framing members. A 4 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor shall be protected if exposed to physical damage. A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection if it is securely fastened to the construction; otherwise, it shall be protected in rigid metal conduit RMC, intermediate metal conduit (IMC), rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic tubing EMT, or cable armor. Grounding electrode conductors smaller than 6 AWG shall be protected in (RMC), IMC, PVC, RTRC, (EMT), or cable armor.  *Grounding electrode conductors and grounding electrode bonding jumpers shall not be required to comply with 300.5. 
*
It is a misnomer to refer to a GEC as a conductor for the purpose of applying article 300.

Conductor, Covered. A conductor encased within material of composition or thickness that is not recognized by this Code as electrical insulation.
Conductor, Insulated. A conductor encased within material of composition and thickness that is recognized by this Code as electrical insulation.

Note that there are two types of conductor per the CEC....Covered and Insulated.  There is no mention of a bare conductor.  The use of the word conductor for EGC and GEC is a quirk and flaw built into the text of the CEC. 

Grounding and bonding conductors are mentioned in article 300.  Taken in context the reference is to wiring methods and not a GEC.  Furthermore, article 300 makes no restrictions and sends one to article 250.
300.2(B)(2)
(2) Grounding and Bonding Conductors. Equipment grounding conductors shall be permitted to be installed outside a raceway or cable assembly where in accordance with the provisions of 250.130(C) for certain existing installations or in accordance with 250.134(B), Exception No. 2, for dc circuits. Equipment bonding conductors shall be permitted to be installed on the outside of raceways in accordance with 250.102(E).


----------



## steveray

Hunh....We do not have that yet....2017?


----------



## Francis Vineyard

steveray said:


> Hunh....We do not have that yet....2017?


The bold type in ICE post is from 250.64 for protection where exposed; and would not need to comply with the burial depth of 300.5. 

(B) Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage.
Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its enclosure
shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it is
carried. Grounding electrode conductors shall be permitted to
be installed on or through framing members. A 4 AWG or
larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor
shall be protected if exposed to physical damage. A 6 AWG
grounding electrode conductor that is free from exposure to
physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the smi'ace
of the building construction without metal covering or protection
if it is securely fastened to the construction; otherwise, it
shall be protected in rigid metal conduit RMC, intermediate
metal conduit (TMC), rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC),
reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic
tubing EMT, or cable armor. Grounding electrode conductors
smaller than 6 A WG shall be protected in (RMC),
TMC, PVC, RTRC, (EMT) , or cable armor.* Grounding electrode
conductors and grounding electrode bonding jumpers
shall not be required to comply with 300.5.*


----------



## mtlogcabin

Our co-op requires two ground rods 10 feet apart.
legal authority? I do not know. I do know they will not install a meter without two ground rods installed.


----------



## ICE

Francis Vineyard said:


> The bold type in ICE post is from 250.64 for protection where exposed; and would not need to comply with the burial depth of 300.5.
> 
> (B) Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage.
> Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its enclosure
> shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it is
> carried. Grounding electrode conductors shall be permitted to
> be installed on or through framing members. A 4 AWG or
> larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor
> shall be protected if exposed to physical damage. A 6 AWG
> grounding electrode conductor that is free from exposure to
> physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the smi'ace
> of the building construction without metal covering or protection
> if it is securely fastened to the construction; otherwise, it
> shall be protected in rigid metal conduit RMC, intermediate
> metal conduit (TMC), rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC),
> reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic
> tubing EMT, or cable armor. Grounding electrode conductors
> smaller than 6 A WG shall be protected in (RMC),
> TMC, PVC, RTRC, (EMT) , or cable armor.* Grounding electrode
> conductors and grounding electrode bonding jumpers
> shall not be required to comply with 300.5.*


Actually Francis, the bold is found at 300.5(B)


----------



## Francis Vineyard

ICE, enlighten us.

*300.5 Underground Installations.

(A) Minimum Cover Requirements.* Direct-buried cable
or conduit or other raceways shall be installed to meet the
minimum cover requirements of Table 300.5.

*(B) Wet Locations.* The interior of enclosures or raceways
installed underground shall be considered to be a wet location.
Insulated conductors and cables installed in these enclosures
or raceways in underground installations shall comply
with 310.10(C). Any connections or splices in an underground
installation shall be approved for wet locations.

*(C) Underground Cables and Conductors Under Buildings.*
Underground cable and conductors installed under a
building shall be in a raceway.


----------



## conarb

mtlogcabin said:


> Our co-op requires two ground rods 10 feet apart.
> legal authority? I do not know. I do know they will not install a meter without two ground rods installed.


That's what I keep tryhing to tell you guys, it's a utility requirement not a code requirement, do you guys even have the maps showing soils conditions to even determine the number of ground rods necessary? Do you know how to determine the number of ground rods if you were given the soils conditions?


----------



## Rick18071

Do these maps show when you only need one rod? What if they are using a medal pipe of a water line or a ground ring etc.?
Hardly ever see rods for new houses anymore. They mostly use the footing rebar now.

Do you make them do a ohm test if only one rod is OK according to the maps as required by code?


----------



## conarb

Rick18071 said:


> Do these maps show when you only need one rod? What if they are using a medal pipe of a water line or a ground ring etc.?
> Hardly ever see rods for new houses anymore. They mostly use the footing rebar now.
> 
> Do you make them do a ohm test if only one rod is OK according to the maps as required by code?


We use all three, U-fer, steel gas pipe, and copper water pipe I don't know what they do for these homes with plastic pipe.  As I recall the map showed two areas, one for one rod and the other for two rods, then where were all kinds of specifications and diagrams.


----------



## rgrace

*"Grounding electrode conductors and grounding electrode bonding jumpers shall not be required to comply with 300.5."*

I located this in the 2014 NEC, Section 250.64 (B). Thanks ! Very helpful, we have not adopted this version yet. This confuses me somewhat. I could make the argument of burial depth being used as physical protection for the GEC in pre-2014 NEC. This change takes away the protection that it had previously received from 300.5 and validates the original concern of installing a grounding electrode 7' from the foundation. How is the GEC protected at this point? Somewhere else in the code? Obviously protection from physical damage is important, as 250.64 (B) indicates. Is the following, quoted part of that section implying that the GEC installed underground is to be installed in a protective covering that doesn't have to comply with burial depths?

"otherwise, it shall be protected in rigid metal conduit RMC, intermediate metal conduit (IMC), rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic tubing EMT, or cable armor. Grounding electrode conductors smaller than 6 AWG shall be protected in (RMC),
IMC, PVC, RTRC, (EMT), or cable armor."

Any idea where we find reason statements for code changes to the NEC?


----------



## ICE

Uh Oh Francis I'm sorry....I am full of it.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

ICE said:


> Uh Oh Francis I'm sorry....I am full of it.


Aren't we all from time to time! Wasn't sure but at least you started us down the path to make the job easier. Thanks

*2017 NEC
250.64(B)(4) In contact with the Earth.* Grounding electrode conductors and grounding electrode bonding jumpers in contact with the earth shall not be required to comply with 300.5, but shall be buried or otherwise protected if subject to physical damage.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

rgrace said:


> *"Grounding electrode conductors and grounding electrode bonding jumpers shall not be required to comply with 300.5."*
> 
> I located this in the 2014 NEC, Section 250.64 (B). Thanks ! Very helpful, we have not adopted this version yet. This confuses me somewhat. I could make the argument of burial depth being used as physical protection for the GEC in pre-2014 NEC. This change takes away the protection that it had previously received from 300.5 and validates the original concern of installing a grounding electrode 7' from the foundation. How is the GEC protected at this point? Somewhere else in the code? Obviously protection from physical damage is important, as 250.64 (B) indicates. Is the following, quoted part of that section implying that the GEC installed underground is to be installed in a protective covering that doesn't have to comply with burial depths?
> 
> "otherwise, it shall be protected in rigid metal conduit RMC, intermediate metal conduit (IMC), rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic tubing EMT, or cable armor. Grounding electrode conductors smaller than 6 AWG shall be protected in (RMC),
> IMC, PVC, RTRC, (EMT), or cable armor."
> 
> Any idea where we find reason statements for code changes to the NEC?


Will this answer will be satisfactory;

"I will be honest with you; I really pushed for subsection (4) In Contact with Earth. One of my pet peeves when I do an electrical service inspection is to find a grounding electrode conductor running along the surface of the ground without any protection … just lying there. The 2014 language left the reader with the impression that a grounding electrode conductor lying on the earth didn’t need protection – ever. That was never the intent. It needs protection if it is subject to physical damage. The new language states that a grounding electrode, if in contact with the earth, shall not be required to comply with 300.5, but shall “be buried or otherwise protected if subject to physical damage.”  So if you are an electrical inspector and feel that the grounding electrode conductor is subject to people walking on it, kicking it, tripping on it, or whatever do me a big favor and have the contractor bury it a little bit. I really have to thank my code panel (CMP-5) for adding this new language. It makes enforcement so much easier for the inspector!"

Source: Nick’s Picks: Top 10 Electrical Code Changes NEC 2017


----------



## rgrace

Great response Francis, thanks ! One of those areas that slipped through the cracks for a code cycle. Gotta get my hands on the 2017 now


----------



## Francis Vineyard

Mr. Grace I recommend NEC 2014 and the 2017 Analysis of Changes for further clarifications. 

Below is from the 2014


----------



## steveray

Put rebar in your foundation (CEE) and no rods.....


----------



## conarb

steveray said:


> Put rebar in your foundation (CEE) and no rods.....


Not around here you don't,  our utility requires 4 bonds, Ufer, gas, water, and driven rods.


----------



## steveray

Conarb, Bonding and grounding are different, under the NEC, you can use rods, or if you use the water pipe you have to supplement with rods, but technically you only need one grounding electrode (with the GEC running to it), and the others, (where present), get bonded....you can't bond plastic water pipe (I know Cali is weird with that though)


----------



## conarb

steveray said:


> Conarb, Bonding and grounding are different, under the NEC, you can use rods, or if you use the water pipe you have to supplement with rods, but technically you only need one grounding electrode (with the GEC running to it), and the others, (where present), get bonded....you can't bond plastic water pipe (I know Cali is weird with that though)


All I know is we do what the utility requires to give us service, and that includes getting the inspector to call them clearing it along with their requirements.


----------



## ICE

conarb said:


> Not around here you don't,  our utility requires 4 bonds, Ufer, gas, water, and driven rods.


Gas pipe should never be used as an electrode. It should always be bonded.  That can be accomplished by the equipment ground for a gas appliance such as a furnace or a jumper to a water pipe at the water heater.  The gas pipe in the ground must be separated from the bond by a dialectic union......a twist on that is the introduction of CSST which requires a solid #6 bonding jumper between the gas hard pipe and the grounding electrode system.


----------



## conarb

How do you know the difference btween bonding and grounding?  It all looks the same to a dumb  builder like me.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Mark K said:


> Is it possible that the inspector is imposing his preferences as opposed to what the code says?.





Francis Vineyard said:


> Will this answer will be satisfactory;
> ”  So if you are an electrical inspector and feel that the grounding electrode conductor is subject to people walking on it, kicking it, tripping on it, or whatever do me a big favor and have the contractor bury it a little bit.



What a quandary, One forum member imply's I may be imposing my preference and the other, like me want's it safe.

I blame this on new plastic water lines being used for water service, we've lost our water pipe ground source. When an existing home upgrades the electrical service we have altered the code by allowing an option of TWO rods, that have to be a minimum of 6-ft apart. Distance from a foundation may be difficult to achieve in some situations. In this case the contractor hit rock so he decided to go further out from the home with the ground wire less than 6-inches below grade. I  suggested that the rod be installed at 45° per code, with contractor resistance.  Claimed he would not be able to remove the driven rod and it would be an additional expense. The end result is the grounding wire and grounding rod is below grade.

Conarb has mentioned additional rod requirements on some of his projects and some of us may not be aware of our soil types, that is not the case here, I have the County Soil Type Survey. There are some areas I have heard that have had problems with the rock hard caliche, the Las Vegas area I believe. 

Conarb, my avatar is a photo of the AT6 we owned when I was in HS, that paint job was the results of a whole summer of sanding after our plane partner hit a top of a telephone pole on a night landing. He walked away from the crash and said "the planes all yours!" After that we found repair parts out in CA near SF to put it back together.


----------



## Pcinspector1

conarb said:


> How do you know the difference btween bonding and grounding?  It all looks the same to a dumb  builder like me.



This is a pretty good book to have in your library: Soares book on grounding and bonding.


----------



## steveray

We say one rod with 25 ohms or 2 max regardless of resisitance, no resistance test...."subject to damage" is the purview of the inspector, not rod placement....


----------



## meternerd

steveray said:


> They need to be 6' apart (or technically maybe the length of the rod.) Nothing on proximity of building....And if they hit footing steel, they don't need the rods....GEC is continuous from panel to rod to rod? No breaks?


----------



## meternerd

NEC only requires that the GEC must be continuous from the electrode to the panel GEC connection, not rod to rod.  You could use a grounding clamp on the first rod, then a grounding clamp to the next rod and use another clamp there.  They can even be spliced if it is an irreversible splice and is rated for use as such.


----------



## meternerd

There is no "max" for number of ground rods.  You could put in a dozen if you wanted to....There is a "supplementary grounding electrode" requirement if ground resistance is greater than 25 ohms....but, really, how many have a ground resistance tester and know how to use it?  Most just use 2 8' min. rods at least 6 ft apart and call it good.  As far as utility jurisdiction, as a utility metering tech, I never got involved in grounding and bonding unless it was obvious that there was a safety hazard, such as a missing MBJ or improperly terminated GEC (such as the GEC terminating on the ground bus but not having a bus bar or jumper to the neutral bar).  NEC 250.24.A.4


----------



## Pcinspector1

Apparently the GEC can be 50-ft out in the middle of your backyard as long as it' covered properly and its no closer than 6-ft to another rod. Seems there should be a limitation on how far it can be from a foundation. Would't even be a discussion item if we still had a water pipe grounding source. Plastic water lines have forced us into an alternative way to ground the service. 

I have a friend in the radio tower business, He sez "wait until one of these new houses that's using the UFER ground up through the foundation wall gets hit by lighting and it blows out the foundation!" I don't know if that can happen or not? I did't have an answer for him.

He claimed he'd rather have the two rod system!


----------



## steveray

meternerd said:


> NEC only requires that the GEC must be continuous from the electrode to the panel GEC connection, not rod to rod.  You could use a grounding clamp on the first rod, then a grounding clamp to the next rod and use another clamp there.  They can even be spliced if it is an irreversible splice and is rated for use as such.



We say that the 2 rods are the GE...so continuous....

PC....If you use the metal water pipe, you have "always" needed the rod as well....


----------



## Pcinspector1

steveray, yes, I agree...For years we did a water pipe ground and a ground rod. The POCO here no longer installs a grounding rod for their meter socket, the grounding is done at the pole or transformer. We however still require two grounding sources on the panel.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

Not in the IRC that I know of but in NEC 250.30 the grounding electrode shall be near as practical to and preferably in the same area as the grounding electrode conductor connection to the system.
The other thing that is misunderstood is the electrodes can be inches apart. The code states each electrode of "one grounding system" shall not be less than 6 feet from any other electrode of "another grounding system. "

Would not another grounding system be prohibited to be bonded together unless it the same building or same service to another building in accordance to E3607.6 (250.58)?


----------



## ICE

250.30 deals with a separately derived system.

2560.53(D Metal Underground Water Pipe. If used as a grounding electrode, metal underground water pipe shall meet the requirements of 250.53(D)(1) and (D)(2).

(1) Continuity. Continuity of the grounding path or the bonding connection to interior piping shall not rely on water meters or filtering devices and similar equipment.

(2) Supplemental Electrode Required. A metal underground water pipe shall be supplemented by an additional electrode of a type specified in 250.52(A)(2) through (A)(8). If the supplemental electrode is of the rod, pipe, or plate type, it shall comply with 250.53(A). The supplemental electrode shall be bonded to one of the following: 

(1)  Grounding electrode conductor
(2)  Grounded service-entrance conductor
(3)  Nonflexible grounded service raceway
(4)  Any grounded service enclosure
(5)  As provided by 250.32(B)
Exception: The supplemental electrode shall be permitted to be bonded to the interior metal water piping at any convenient point as specified in 250.68(C)(1), Exception.
(C) Grounding Electrode Connections. Grounding electrode conductors and bonding jumpers shall be permitted to be connected at the following locations and used to extend the connection to an electrode(s):
(1)
Interior metal water piping located not more than 1.52 m (5 ft) from the point of entrance to the building shall be permitted to be used as a conductor to interconnect electrodes that are part of the grounding electrode system.


250.53(A)(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)  Rod, pipe, or plate electrode
(2)  Grounding electrode conductor
(3)  Grounded service-entrance conductor
(4)  Nonflexible grounded service raceway
(5)  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.
250.54
(3) Supplemental Electrode. If 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.
Informational Note: The paralleling efficiency of rods is increased by spacing them twice the length of the longest rod.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

Thanks


----------



## Mark K

The problem with “wanting it safe” is that it is subjective.  There is never total safety.  One of the roles of building regulations is that the question is resolved in a way that can be understood by all.

A basic principal of our legal system is that you cannot be compelled to comply with laws that you have no way of knowing.  The problem is that the builder has no way to know of requirements that were not adopted that only exist in the mind of the building official.  A building official that does not understand this is a loose cannon.  You would be incensed if a police officer imposed his own personal laws on you so why not when the building official does the same thing.

Regarding grounding, the goal is to have a ground resistance less than 5 Ohms (I have also heard 25 Ohms).  Is this number or another number clearly stated in the electrical code and if so what is it.

Because of the hassle of actually measuring the ground resistance minimum requirements or rules of thumb have been adopted.  But if you have a system with low enough resistance all the rules of thumb are irrelevant.  Failure to comply with the minimum spacing between ground rods just means that the grounding will be less effective.  If this is a problem do not abandon the offending ground rod just add another ground rod at least the minimum distance from the first ground rod.  When you do this the system will be better.

It is my understanding the reason for introducing non conducting pipe in the water system is that this prevents grounding current from flowing in the water pipes and thus reduces the corrosion in the water distribution system.

A ufer ground is not effective if a membrane is placed under all of the footings as is the case in some areas/sites.  When this is the case you have a floating ground.


----------



## ICE

Mark K said:


> The problem with “wanting it safe” is that it is subjective.  There is never total safety.  One of the roles of building regulations is that the question is resolved in a way that can be understood by all.
> 
> A basic principal of our legal system is that you cannot be compelled to comply with laws that you have no way of knowing.  The problem is that the builder has no way to know of requirements that were not adopted that only exist in the mind of the building official.  A building official that does not understand this is a loose cannon.  You would be incensed if a police officer imposed his own personal laws on you so why not when the building official does the same thing.
> 
> Regarding grounding, the goal is to have a ground resistance less than 5 Ohms (I have also heard 25 Ohms).  Is this number or another number clearly stated in the electrical code and if so what is it.
> 
> Because of the hassle of actually measuring the ground resistance minimum requirements or rules of thumb have been adopted.  But if you have a system with low enough resistance all the rules of thumb are irrelevant.  Failure to comply with the minimum spacing between ground rods just means that the grounding will be less effective.  If this is a problem do not abandon the offending ground rod just add another ground rod at least the minimum distance from the first ground rod.  When you do this the system will be better.
> 
> It is my understanding the reason for introducing non conducting pipe in the water system is that this prevents grounding current from flowing in the water pipes and thus reduces the corrosion in the water distribution system.
> 
> A ufer ground is not effective if a membrane is placed under all of the footings as is the case in some areas/sites.  When this is the case you have a floating ground.



*"The problem with “wanting it safe” is that it is subjective." *
Code is clear, easy to understand with subjectivity removed.
*
"There is never total safety."*
But there is.  In collaboration with Southern California Edison I have rendered many electrical installations totally safe.

*"One of the roles of building regulations is that the question is resolved in a way that can be understood by all."*
Following code and understanding code are sometimes divergent concepts harbored within a particular mass of brain matter.  A great many practitioners of construction trades follow codes with no inkling of why.

*"A basic principal of our legal system is that you cannot be compelled to comply with laws that you have no way of knowing."*
Wrong as wrong can be.  Break some arcane law and observe the result with your nose in a corner.  "But teacher, I didn't know"

*"The problem is that the builder has no way to know of requirements that were not adopted that only exist in the mind of the building official."*
Well then, that's usually only a problem once.  But yes, there are some dimwitted......well Shirley you get where I'm going with this.

*"A building official that does not understand this is a loose cannon."*
A loose cannon is a deadly hazard.....slamming around on the deck of a warship smashing conscripts to bits.  The building official you are referencing is more of a sniper in a crows nest.  He sees the cannon and it's random destruction while delivering pinpoint correction.

*"You would be incensed if a police officer imposed his own personal laws on you so why not when the building official does the same thing."*
With most folks, that is absolutely correct.  Incensed? Such a mild term applies to a few.  Pissed off applies to the many.  But as Tommy, the oldest Henderson boy said, "Here's the thing about that"    The correction could have come from a code book or perhaps my ass.  Seldom does anyone know the difference. 

*"Regarding grounding, the goal is to have a ground resistance less than 5 Ohms (I have also heard 25 Ohms)."*
Logically the usual goal is zero.

*"Is this number or another number clearly stated in the electrical code and if so what is it."*
25 to 6,100,000,000 can be found in the NEC.  Clearly stated?  That depends on the level of electrical engineering acumen one has achieved. PHD maybe. 

*"Because of the hassle of actually measuring the ground resistance minimum requirements or rules of thumb have been adopted."*
Rules of thumb vary region to region.  Here and there it's a thumb on the scale.....with others it's a thumb and a nose.....and yet others have a thumb up their ass.  In my experience it is a thumb and a forefinger parroting code for all comers.

*"But if you have a system with low enough resistance all the rules of thumb are irrelevant."*
I do believe that you don't understand the rules that govern the rule of thumb.  The relevance of the rule of thumb forces the outcome.

*"Failure to comply with the minimum spacing between ground rods just means that the grounding will be less effective."*
Duh!  It's a "just" as in trifling???   This is the subjectivity that was left out of the code.

*"If this is a problem do not abandon the offending ground rod just add another ground rod at least the minimum distance from the first ground rod."*
"If"?  Ther's no ifing in baseball.  Toss in a rod you say....six feet from the first rod says you.  It sounds like advice but is hardly sound advice. 

*"When you do this the system will be better."*
Better than what exactly? Is better the best that can be accomplished?  Follow the code rather than half baked internet musings and best is your companion.

*"It is my understanding the reason for introducing non conducting pipe in the water system is that this prevents grounding current from flowing in the water pipes and thus reduces the corrosion in the water distribution system."*
Could it be that plastic pipe is so much cheaper and easier to work with. 

*"A ufer ground is not effective if a membrane is placed under all of the footings as is the case in some areas/sites.  When this is the case you have a floating ground."*
That single sentence lends credence to the rest of what you have written.  Shouldn't be that way...do I have permission to remove it?


----------



## Mark K

Ice

Your reaction suggests that I hit a nerve.  Your responses indicate that you did not understand what I was saying.

I think my posting was a positive informative posting.


----------



## ICE

I just didn't have anything to do while I waited for my wife to walk out of a mall.  Naturally you like your post....and I suppose that I would not...


----------



## tmurray

What Mark is saying is to ensure we differentiate "rules of thumb" from what is written in the code. As a building official, I cannot enforce a rule of thumb anymore than I can enforce best construction practice. All I can enforce is the code.


----------



## ICE

tmurray said:


> What Mark is saying is to ensure we differentiate "rules of thumb" from what is written in the code.



That’s not an uncommon refrain from Mark K.  Peppered with loose cannons and big bad wolf building officials threatening to blow the house down.


----------



## Mark K

ICE

You are crossing a line by making it personal.  What is the Forum policy?


----------



## tmurray

I fail to see how requiring anything that is above and beyond code is any better than allowing things that do not meet code. Both are an official not doing their job. The job is to inspect to the adopted code. If you require more or less, then you are negligent in your duties.


----------



## conarb

tmurray said:


> I fail to see how requiring anything that is above and beyond code is any better than allowing things that do not meet code. Both are an official not doing their job. The job is to inspect to the adopted code. If you require more or less, then you are negligent in your duties.



T Murray:

Your perspective comes from the fact that you have better codes than we do, our codes are now political, so from Tiger's perspective I take it he's trying to enforce from a health and safety prescriptive no matter what the codes say.


----------



## ICE

Mark K said:


> ICE
> 
> You are crossing a line by making it personal.  What is the Forum policy?



Mark K
Your reaction suggests that I hit a nerve. Your responses indicate that you did not understand what I was saying.

I think my posting was a positive informative posting.


----------



## Mark K

The problem with an inspector enforcing his perception of what is safe as opposed to what is in the code, besides being illegal,  is that there is no clear criteria what is safe.  There are some engineers who believe that seismic design forces should be 50% higher than what is currently required by code.  I could probably come up with similar examples for fire resistance or electrical work.

One of the roles of building codes is to resolve these differences of opinion by adopting a requirement that applies to everybody.  If the inspector can then replace the code requirement with his preferences then why to we need building codes?

What is safe is subjective.  This is clear if you look at the code development process.  At one time it was necessary to define a number in a code provision.  One group insisted that the number should be no less than 2.0 while another group said it should be no more than 1.7.  The final number was 1.85.


----------



## conarb

Mark:

I agree with you, the problem is that the I Codes have gone far afield into the collectivist agenda, I'd rather have an inspector that I could negoiate with for a safer, better, building than somebody enforcing codes like Green, Energy, or ADA to the letter.  In my mind the 1994 UBC was the sweet spot, it is arguable that the 1997 UBC is better, but I think that should be dependent upon the location, like right over an earthquake fault then I'd say go to the 1997, but it's a total waste of resources in 99% of the country. 

The other day I heard on the radio that Trump had addressed the Farm Beureau, taking credit for reducing regulations, like dust, drastically increasing farmers' productivity, I don't know of one regulation that has been eliminated in the building professions, can anyone think of one regulation that Trump has eliminated in this business?


----------



## Mark K

Conarb

You do not need an inspector to make a safer building.  That is your choice.  The code sets a minimum.

With respect to your concern about the collectivist agenda, in California take that up your state legislators.  In other states talk to those who adopt the building regulations.

The current code varies the seismic forces depending on the risk, so that the farther you are from a fault the less you have to design for.  You may not see this in the Bay 
Area because here the accelerations are high but in other states the differences are more noticeable.  I would go with the latest code versions.  Part of what you may see is more thorough enforcement.

Trump has no control over building regulations.  Building codes are reserved to the states to regulate.  Admittedly some of the code provisions are influenced by the Feds but that is the choice of the states.  For example compliance with the federal flood maps makes it easier for individuals to get federal backed flood insurance but that is something that those adopting the codes could reject.


----------



## conarb

> Trump has no control over building regulations. Building codes are reserved to the states to regulate. Admittedly some of the code provisions are influenced by the Feds but that is the choice of the states. For example compliance with the federal flood maps makes it easier for individuals to get federal backed flood insurance but that is something that those adopting the codes could reject.



This is a good subject, when campaigning he told the homebuilders that he grew up at the knee of a builder and he was going to reduce regulations, he is reducing regulations for other industries, what can be done  to reduce regulations here?  Going out to lunch now, will pass by tent cities filled with people who can't afford to live anywhere but the streets, even Google engineers are living in their parked cars and campers parked on the streets.


----------

