all over the place. . .
Why anyone would be against properly bonding a metal piping system is beyond my comprehension.
You should resign from any code or policy making boards you might be on.
Laws and rules are written by people. Some people are better at writing rules than others. The NEC is a bunch of rules which have been written by people and the rules are not always perfectly written.
Imagine trying to write a rule which must apply to EVERY electrical situation in the entire country including homes, businesses, government, and industry! Not so easy!
Take the next two lines for example...
Every year IN which you were employed.
Every year FOR which you were employed.
They mean different things!
When rules are not clear as to exactly what they mean, you need to look at the "intention" of the rule. Why was that rule written in the first place? What was the writer's "intention"?
And judges do this. A law may not be clear, there may be a dispute, the judge may research the law and learn what the intended purpose of the law was.
In the case of the NEC, the judge would be the local electrical inspector.
If you don't like the way a NEC rule is written, you can suggest that it be changed here...
Last edited by Billy_Bob; 12-17-2009 at 08:07 AM.
Guys I have a scenario i want you to ponder.
This house has plastic water supply pipe to the main shut off (typical today.). Then has copper thru out the rest of the house. So the system cannot be used for a grounding electrode. Now I have a gas water heater. The NEC says the piping is to be bonded by the circuit that could energise the pipe. What circuit is there to energise the pipe?
As to changing the code go to this link and search my user name.
Master Plumber Mark:
there is nothing better than the
manly smell of WD 40 in the air
while banging away on brass with a chisel and hammer...
it smells like......victory......
do not hit your thumb...
Just so everyone's clear: I'm the POODLE in the picture ("french", get it?) The hot woman is my wife.
Last edited by codeone; 12-18-2009 at 03:17 AM.
What did you think, 4 out of 5 is not a bad average is it? Got several accepted for the 2011 cycle also.
Although it takes a couple of years I will also summit a proposal in order to get a panel statement on items that I am unsure of in order to see their intent. I did this for the 2011 cycle so I would have their statement in writing concerning conductors installed in a 3R enclosure.
What I don’t do is make statements such as, “this is the way me and all my friends has done it for years” or “this is the intent of the code the way I see it”.
What I do is post documented text to back my statements so everyone can see for their self the intent of the code making panel.
What I have done throughout this entire thread is post code sections from years (the same years that this nonsense was being enforced) gone by that the requirement to make a plumbing pipe electrically continuous had been removed from the NEC. I have posted the statements from the Code Making Panel that bonding a piping system that does not have electrical continuity is nothing more than a big joke and to ensure electrical continuity between two pipes is not required.
The other side of this debate has come back with some spectacular documentation that revels the world. Just a few:
I asked a simple question way back in post #14 that has not been addressed as yet except for the post I have quoted here. These post has led to others making similar insults but not one word of documentation to back your opinion although I have backed every word I have posted with statement from the code making panel and the NEC.
The bottom line is you can either back up your statements or you can’t. As a professional inspector I would think you would be prepared to back up something that you are enforcing with some sort of documentation.
I do know that should someone bring you before the Qualifications Board that has issued your certificates you will have to produce documentation of your reasons for enforcement of lose your certificates.
I know for a fact that neither the ICC nor the State of NC will accept the reasoning that this has been a Standard of Practice as foundation for making an inspection.
The bottom line of this discussion is there is no requirement to bond the hot and cold water pipes across a water heater. There is no requirement to make metal water piping systems electrically continuous.
Unless a metal water piping system is electrically continuous in and of itself then the bonding fall back to 250.104(B). See the posted proposals. The electrician is not required to make the metal water pipe electrically continuous.
The hot and cold water pipes of a building are the same water system. They are both potable water and do not constitute two separate piping systems. If there is not electrical continuity between the hot and cold water pipes for ANY reason be it fittings or stubs supplying the water heater there is no requirement for the electrician to bond these two pipes together.
I now challenge anyone be it electrician, inspector, plumber, or DIY to post documentation of anything different.
Then for a rule/law, it needs to apply to everybody and every situation nationwide...
So the next question is... Have people in the past been electrocuted because a water pipe was energized?
Then (looking at this on a nationwide basis), if x number of people are being electrocuted each year by water pipes which have become energized, then let's make a rule that the water pipe system must be bonded to ground...
Then over time as this is done, fewer people will be electrocuted by water pipe systems which have become energized! Homes are safer to live in.
A LARGE MAJORITY of homes will never have a problem with anything energizing the water pipe system. The additional safety feature of it being bonded to ground will never be needed. But in those rare cases where a water pipe does become energized, the people will be protected.
So the bottom line is if you have a rule that the water pipe system must be bonded to ground, then this will save lives nationwide.
So this is a good thing in my book and should be done.
And this is the same thing with the metal cases of appliances. The range, the refrigerator, the washing machine, etc.
When I was a kid, I remember we had a refrigerator where if you were in bare feet and opened the door, you felt a slight electrical tingle (metal handle).
Well since then they have come out with grounded outlets for homes and grounded metal cases on refrigerators. This is no longer a problem. (My latest refrigerator has a plastic handle.) I've not felt an electrical tingle on a refrigerator since I was a kid!
The house wiring is now much safer, the appliances are much safer. I wonder how many lives they have saved?
I have no idea where statistics on electrocutions are at, but I did find the following chart going back to 1980. This shows a decreasing rate of electrocutions. THAT is the whole idea of this in my book!
Last edited by Billy_Bob; 12-18-2009 at 06:51 AM.
Billy Bob what you say could be true. However as a Code Enforcement Officer one cannot enforce what is not in the code. We are not allowed to enforce personal opinions. Just put last reply to cause thought process.
We all know what the "Metal water piping" part of that means.
Then the word "system" per one source means: "a set of interacting or interdependent entities forming an integrated whole"
Then they even show a "schematic representation" of the word system...
Each system would be a complete system comprised of the same substance.
The code making Panel in their statement was direct and to the point with this statement, “Panel Statement: The requirements of 250.104(A) apply to complete metallic water piping systems. Where there is no complete metallic water piping system, then the requirements of 250.104(B) would apply for those portions of isolated metal water piping system likely to become energized.” And, “Panel Statement: The conditions indicated in the substantiation are already covered by 250.104(B) where there is not a complete metallic water piping system”
Notice that the word complete was used in both statements? The easiest way I know to describe a complete metallic water system would be to say a metal water system that has continuity from end to end. If it does not have continuity from one end to the other or one part to the another part then it is not a complete metal water system and would fall under 250.104(B).
Here is 250.104 A and B.
Notice the Fine Print Note and here is what the NEC says about a FPN;250.104 Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel.
(A) Metal Water Piping. The metal water piping system shall be bonded as required in (A)(1), (A)(2), or (A)(3) of this section. The bonding jumper(s) shall be installed in accordance with 250.64(A), (B), and (E). The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be accessible.
(1) General. Metal water piping system(s) installed in or attached to a building or structure shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or to the one or more grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance with Table 250.66 except as permitted in 250.104(A)(2) and (A)(3).
(2) Buildings of Multiple Occupancy. Does not apply to this discussion
(3) Multiple Buildings or Structures Supplied by a Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s). Does not apply to this discussion
(B) Other Metal Piping. Where installed in or attached to a building or structure, a metal piping system(s), including gas piping, that is likely to become energized shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or the one or more grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance with 250.122, using the rating of the circuit that is likely to energize the piping system(s). The equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that is likely to energize the piping shall be permitted to serve as the bonding means. The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be accessible.
FPN: Bonding all piping and metal air ducts within the premises will provide additional safety.
Nowhere does it say that a bonding jumper must be installed “in” the system at all. What it does say is that the system is to be bonded to some accessible point on a complete metallic water pipe.(C) Explanatory Material. Explanatory material, such as references to other standards, references to related sections of this Code, or information related to a Code rule, is included in this Code in the form of fine print notes (FPNs). Fine print notes are informational only and are not enforceable as requirements of this Code.
Notice that (B) is addressing other piping systems or systems that don’t contain water. It even refers to gas which we all know isn’t water nor would an air line in a factory be a water piping system, geothermal systems that use glycol or some other such liquid, and so forth.
Notice that in (A) it uses a (s) beside the word jumper and beside the word system and jumper in (A)(1)
What does this mean? It is addressing systems and jumpers that bond things such as potable water, gray water, heat systems that have a boiler and metal pipes, metal pipes for water chillers, geothermal water systems and so forth.
Looking at this on a nation wide basis one can easily see where buildings could have multiple metal water piping systems and multiple bonding jumpers therefore the insertion of the (s).
Read carefully the main text in 250.104(A). It says to bond the system as outlined in (1), (2), and (3) below. (2) and (3) do not apply to the discussion so this only leaves (1).
In the text of 250.104(A)(1) it says to bond the system and as you have pointed out the circle to either the service enclosure, the neutral at the service, the grounding electrode conductor when it is large enough or to one of the electrodes. It does not say anywhere that the system itself must be bonded in parts or that it should be kept electrically continuous.
There is no verbiage to be found in the NEC to substantiate a requirement to make the potable water system in a building electrically continuous from end to end. There is verbiage found in 250.104 to substantiate that there is no need to install a bonding jumper unless the water system is entirely metal or has its own continuity throughout the entire system.
It is also clear that it is the intent of the code making panel that if the system is not completely 100% metal then it would fall under the scope of 250.104(B).
If there is no continuity through the metal tank of the water heater nor through a mixing valve somewhere in the building and the water heater uses gas for its function I am not going to install any kind of bond anywhere to the water system unless the electrical code enforcement official in the area of my work can show me in writing where it is required. As I have carefully pointed out there is no verbiage in the NEC that the inspector could point out so it would have to be adopted into their codes and a copy of the amendment recorded in their office and available to the public.