>At this time the code does.
Mr Schiff's comment did not lead me to believe that he thinks that this is the case.
What if I don't know whether the waterline is in earth contact for at least 10': are you saying that I have to assume that it is?
>The comments by Mr. Schiff about not using the metal underground piping as an electrode to improve safety of water department workers are not correct.
Actually, I took those as Mr Fleming's substantiation, but I agree that the reasoning was somewhat flawed.
>If we stopped using it as the grounding electrode, but still bonded it to the grounding system inside the building the same safety problem will exist.
I don't know the the very same problem would exist. It might be reduced slightly simply because another path to earth would be provided by the additional electrodes. But Mr. Fleming's problem is not going to go away.
Since there may be a trend toward non-conducting waterlines, I don't regard a waterline as a primary electrode requiring #4 bare copper grounding.
I have not been viewing waterlines as suitable for use as primary electrodes but rather viewing them as interior piping needing to be bonded as close to the point of entrance as practical.
Some waterlines (to wells) are metal only in the part that is cemented into the foundation. It changes to black plastic on the other side. I don't want to dig one up to check whether it could qualify as an electrode - it's easier to assume that it doesn't qualify. I don't mean to argue. But I do look forward to your answer to my question posed above.
