# Bonding Jumper



## ICE (Jul 2, 2011)

We require a bonding jumper between cold and hot water pipes at the water heater on all service panel up-grades.  They missed it here.  The lack of soot told me that it was recent.  The contractor said that he started to install the jumper but held off to see if I would require it.  What a clown.  He knocks the vent apart and thinks nothing of it.







They missed it here too.






Likewise.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 3, 2011)

Are there any homes in your area that shouldn't be condemned?  :devil


----------



## RJJ (Jul 5, 2011)

Most likely not!


----------



## jwelectric (Jan 31, 2013)

This is being discussed on another forum. Is there a requirement to bond from one pipe to another?

If we are using the NEC the requirement to bond a metal water pipe is found in 250.104(A).

There is no verbiage that allows a metal water pipe to be bonded to another water pipe. This section is very clear on the places this bonded metal water pipe must be bonded to and another metal water pipe is not listed.

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

1-service equipment enclosure,

2-the grounded conductor at the service,

3-the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size,

4-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).

This bonding from one pipe to another is not outlined above. It gives us 4 places that the pipe is to be bonded to and hot and cold is not mentioned.

Is this a local concrete jungle requirement and is so based on what?


----------



## BSSTG (Jan 31, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> (1) General. Metal water piping system(s) installed in or attached to a building or structure shall be bonded to the
> 
> 1-service equipment enclosure,
> 
> ...


----------



## jwelectric (Jan 31, 2013)

BSSTG said:
			
		

> Greetings,--metal water piping systems (s) --I would venture to say that the hot water pipe and the cold water pipe are different systems.


 This seems to the argument of those who say that the bond is required.If they are two separate systems wouldn’t the requirement in 250.104(A)(1) require that each part of the system be bonded to one of the four places outlined instead of one to the other?



			
				BSSTG said:
			
		

> You can't rely on them being bonded through plumbing fixtues. You never know where dielectric fittings will be used supposedly. Hence the requirement in many jurisdictions for the bonding of the hot and cold at the water heater. So I have bonded across the water heater but the plumber has used one of these to install the ice maker. How does that bonding help this issue?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I think it violates the very code section that they are trying to enforce


----------



## BSSTG (Jan 31, 2013)

I am inclined to agree. However, our jurisdicton, and many others hereabout, the IBC is the administrative tool used to apply the NEC.

It reads thusly.

SECTION 104 DUTIES AND POWERS OF BUILDING OFFICIAL

104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.

It would be left up to the building official or AHJ  to make the final determination for acceptance of any alternative method.

BSSTG


----------



## jwelectric (Jan 31, 2013)

Does this mean that the code official is charged with the testing of such an installation where many people that have done nothing but electrical all their lives says something entirely different?

Maybe it is time for ICC to rethink the burden they have laid on the backs of code officials that use their (flawed) codes.


----------



## gfretwell (Jan 31, 2013)

Bonding Jumper. A reliable conductor to ensure the required electrical conductivity between metal parts required to be electrically connected.


----------



## gfretwell (Jan 31, 2013)

2008 handbook commentary 250.104(A)



> Where it cannot be reasonably concluded that the hot and cold water pipes are reliably bonded through mechanical connections, an electrical bonding jumper is required to ensure that this connection is made. Some judgment must be exercised for each installation. Isolated sections of metal piping (such as may be used for plumbing fixture connection) that are connected to an overall nonmetallic water piping system are not subject to the requirements of 250.104(A). The isolated sections are not a metal water piping system. The special installation requirements provided in 250.64(A), (B), and (E) also apply to the water piping bonding jumper.


----------



## jwelectric (Jan 31, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> 2008 handbook commentary 250.104(A)


The commentary is the same in 2011. Notice that Mark nor Jeffrey made a reference to the bonding of hot to cold.

If the two are to be called separate systems then the bonding jumper must land at one of the four points outlined in 250.104(A)(1) not to another water pipe.

Thank you for pointing this out.


----------



## gfretwell (Jan 31, 2013)

The jumper around a water heater is "hot to cold". It would be the jumpers around water softeners or other plastic fittings that are not specifically spelled out.


----------



## steveray (Jan 31, 2013)

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).

Notice they left out © which is where they talk about continuous......maybe that makes it ok?


----------



## jwelectric (Jan 31, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> The jumper around a water heater is "hot to cold". It would be the jumpers around water softeners or other plastic fittings that are not specifically spelled out.


In Part III of 250 the jumpers around removable devices such as water meters is covered, see 250.53(D)(1)Water heaters are not mentioned in any code section. The bonding of hot to cold at a water heater is a violation of 250.104(A)(1) in anybody's book. This sections gives the only four places that a bonding jumper can land and from one pipe to another is not mentioned.


----------



## gfretwell (Jan 31, 2013)

Then the question becomes, where do you bond the hot to the cold as the handbook describes.

We seem to spend a lot more time parsing omissions and oversights in the code than trying to establish what it is trying to accomplish. I guess that is why the ROP looks like the Manhattan phone book every 3 years.

If anything I would say the code might not be clear enough in requiring bonding around the water heater but I don't think it is a violation.


----------



## jwelectric (Jan 31, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> Then the question becomes, where do you bond the hot to the cold as the handbook describes.We seem to spend a lot more time parsing omissions and oversights in the code than trying to establish what it is trying to accomplish. I guess that is why the ROP looks like the Manhattan phone book every 3 years.
> 
> If anything I would say the code might not be clear enough in requiring bonding around the water heater but I don't think it is a violation.


Read Part V where we find 250.103(A)(1) and see if you can find the requirement to bond the hot and cold in the verbiage of the code. I can't find it anywhere. Remember the commentary of Mark Early is not enforceable.


----------



## jwelectric (Jan 31, 2013)

When we are given language such as "SHALL" it is mandatory and not something we can say we think this is what they are wanting. I find the word "SHALL" in 250.104(A)(1) which means that the bonding jumper shall land on one of those four places not somewhere I think someone means for it to land.


----------



## jwelectric (Jan 31, 2013)

No where in the handbook does it say to bond hot to cold either


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 1, 2013)

I cited where the handbook says it is "required".


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 1, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> I cited where the handbook says it is "required".


What you cited was the commentary by Mark Early not what is adopted into law. I do not know of a jurisdiction that adopts the handbook, this must be an Estero Florida thing. What you cited did not say to bond across a water heater this is something that your imagination has developed on its own.

The only thing that can be enforced is what had been adopted in your jurisdiction and FL has adopted the NEC with amendments. There is no requirement to be found to bond across a water heater.

There is no verbiage to be found that requires a metal water pipe to be electrically continuous. Plumbing is mandated by another code other than the NEC. There is no code that says a metal water piping system cannot have non-metallic parts installed.

Spend a little time today reading the codes regarding the bonding of metal water pipes. It can be found in 250.104 of the 2011 NEC.


----------



## steveray (Feb 1, 2013)

Excuse my ignorance as you obviously know way more about electrical than I do....but....every piece of steel in a building does not need it's own jumper back to the service, Correct? The frame is considered bonded by the bolting or welding.....The rebar in the footing is bonded by "the usual steel tie wires" (until they use coated ones, but that is another story in another post someday)....All of these elements must be considered "reliable conductors" per the definition that GF posted above......Correct?  The connection between hot and cold is just that.....the jumper is the wire that goes back to the service....But hey!.....All the pipe is going to plastic soon anyway.....then this is all moot!



			
				jwelectric said:
			
		

> In Part III of 250 the jumpers around removable devices such as water meters is covered, see 250.53(D)(1)Water heaters are not mentioned in any code section. The bonding of hot to cold at a water heater is a violation of 250.104(A)(1) in anybody's book. This sections gives the only four places that a bonding jumper can land and from one pipe to another is not mentioned.


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 1, 2013)

JW, you may have picked the wrong state to talk about bonding. Florida even requires bonding steel studs. We bond every chance we get.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 1, 2013)

steveray said:
			
		

> ...All of these elements must be considered "reliable conductors" per the definition that GF posted above......Correct?  The connection between hot and cold is just that.....the jumper is the wire that goes back to the service....But hey!.....All the pipe is going to plastic soon anyway.....then this is all moot!


No none of this is a conductor. None of this is required to be electrically continuous. The conductor between a hot and cold is a bonding jumper that is incorrectly installed


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 1, 2013)

Back up a few notes and read the definition of bonding jumper. I see no place in the code that says you can't bond any metal to any other metal. You have only pointed out that it is not specifically required


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 2, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> Back up a few notes and read the definition of bonding jumper. I see no place in the code that says you can't bond any metal to any other metal. You have only pointed out that it is not specifically required





			
				ICE said:
			
		

> We require a bonding jumper between cold and hot water pipes at the water heater


The question is as an inspector do you require it?

As a contractor I am telling you I aint gonna to do it!

As an inspector I will never tell someone to do something unless I can show them in print that it is required.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 2, 2013)

In post ten you posted the commentary of the hand book to enforce the bonding

In post 15 again you reference the commentary which any inspector knows is not enforceable

In post 19 you again use the word “required”

In post 24 you for the second time reference the definition of a wire to state you opinion.

The one thing you haven’t done is address the section of the NEC that says directly where these bonding jumpers are to land. It is found in at least two of the subsections of 250.104

With the deepest of respect please show me verbiage in the NEC that clearly states that anything can be bonded to a water pipe.


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 2, 2013)

250.104(A) says "water piping" not just "cold water" and it refers to bonding jumpers which are defined an article 100 as "A reliable conductor to ensure the required electrical conductivity between metal parts required to be electrically connected."

The initial connection to the water piping needs to be at one of those 4 places you reference but beyond that you can use bonding jumpers to insure a conductive path.

That is how I read it.

If you, as a contractor, want to do a sub standard job and parse the code to justify it, that is between you and your AHJ. I have seldom seen it work out well for the contractor in the long run tho.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 2, 2013)

So if you can’t back you statements with code you will start calling what someone else does substandard.

Until someone can show verbiage that comes close to what used to be in print then it is nothing more than a desire of someone who reads into a statement what they want that statement to read.

In 1975 the NEC was very clear about metal pipes but as anyone can see they know that the NEC has no control over what a plumber does with the water pipes in a building therefore this ridiculous rule was removed from the text of the NEC.







If there are still electrical inspectors doing inspections today that think that they can somehow enforce a plumbing code then I have nothing but pity for them.


----------



## ICE (Feb 2, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> If there are still electrical inspectors doing inspections today that think that they can somehow enforce a plumbing code then I have nothing but pity for them.


It helps to be a combination inspector.


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 3, 2013)

JW, I am not sure where you are going here. Someone wants to bond around a non-conductive element that is isolating half of the pipe and you say, not only is it not required but that it is a violation. Then you say they should be running a wire all the way back to the panel from the hot side of the water heater.

Are you saying we don't need to bond "hot" water pipes too (I know you say water sprinkler pipes don't need bonding).

Do you really think 250.104(A) only refers to cold potable water supply pipes from the entrance to the first plastic part? Why even bother?


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 3, 2013)

I am not saying anything other than what is in print. As an inspector that is all that one has that they can enforce.

The NEC does not say to bond hot and/or cold water pipes, all it says is to bond the piping system.

If there is a water piping system that has both hot and cold connected to a kitchen sink the IPC is very clear that the only water piping system that can be connected to that kitchen sink is potable water.

The only people that I know that calls the hot and cold pipes in a building two different systems is dumb :butt electrical inspectors that has seen something they think is a good idea and want to keep seeing it. They form some dumb idea in their head and claim it is the intent of the code without doing one second of research. When I want to know the intent of a code section I read the ROPs and the ROCs where I can see in print what their thoughts were and not just wildly assume. I would hope that someone charged with doing a compliance check on my work would do the same but we all know that for the most part they just aint gonna cause they don't haveta.

The code making panel in their statement was very clear that if the water piping system is not a 100% total metal piping system then bond by 250.104(B)

5-235 Log #1834 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject

(250.104(A)(1))

____________________________________________________________

Submitter: Mark T. Rochon, Mark J. Rochon Master Electrician

Substantiation: Nonmetallic water piping systems are being inserted between our metal water piping system and today’s code is not recognizing these changes.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

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.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

5-236 Log #2432 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject

(250.104(A)(1))

____________________________________________________________

Submitter: Robert P. McGann, City of Cambridge

Substantiation: With much expanded use of plastic water piping system(s) isolating section of metal piping systems. This type of installation leaves contractors and inspectors what is required to be bonded.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

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.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

Of course I already know that the world is full of electrical inspectors that claim they know far more than those charged with the writing of the codes and some will even start calling the compliant work substandard in order to prove just how smart they are.

No my friend it is not what I am saying but it is what those who have far more knowledge than I is saying.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 3, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> It helps to be a combination inspector.


It sure does. It helps a lot of code enforcement officials get into trouble trying to force one trade to do another trades work. Here is an example; a bath remodel with three contractors involved, the general, plumber, and electrical. A new bath fan was installed and the electrical inspector held the job until the electrician installed the vent pipe. Later the vent pipe accumulated water to the point that it damaged the sheetrock. In court the electrician was fined for doing HVAC work without a license even though he had evidence that it was because of the code official holding the inspection. Needless to say the ex-code official is flipping hamburgers at the local dinner for a living these days. Every once and a while we see this buger maker out back the dinner and he is :banghd


----------



## ICE (Feb 3, 2013)

It's a crying shame that an electrical inspector lost his job.

Where was the mechanical inspector?

That's a rhetorical question.  (Fatboy, that has nothing to do with suppositories.......although, come to think of it, that might be the problem here)

Having all those specialty inspectors can cause confusion.

I got tossed out of a restaurant because I asked the salad waitress to point out the head waitress.

Well it was a bit more involved than that.

Talk about confusion, it was nearly a riot.

But gosh, nobody got canned over it.

So go on then and fire an electrical inspector because he held up a contractor for a fan with no vent.  After all, there was damage to drywall.  Feel free to gloat but temper your enthusiasm for at any moment, for any trifling reason, you too might be canned.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 3, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> Where was the mechanical inspector?


Although a rhetorical question is asked to make a point instead of looking for an answer I just can’t help myself.The electrical inspector was a multi-trade inspector that was asking the electrician who wired the exhaust fan to vent it before he would issue the CC for the electrical. That is what ended up costing him his job.

This was out of bounds of the electrical inspector and if he was going to invoke his mechanical authority it should have been directed to the general not the electrician. It would then been on the general or in this case the handy man to hire a HVAC person to install the vent.

The point of the story was to show that sometimes the multi-trade inspector crosses the line in their inspections. If I remember I think you asked the question if a service change was done and the electrician didn’t draft stop and no general was involved, who would the inspector address the issue of draft stopping with. Myself I would address the same one that hired the electrician just as I would on new work. But then again ………………….. and I understand.

Why would someone ask the salad waitress for the head waitress? I usually go straight to the top and bypass all the ground work myself.


----------



## ICE (Feb 3, 2013)

It's not as much fun when you don't get it.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 3, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> It's a crying shame that an electrical inspector lost his job.  Where was the mechanical inspector?
> 
> That's a rhetorical question.  (Fatboy, that has nothing to do with suppositories.......although, come to think of it, that might be the problem here)
> 
> ...


Nothing I like more than someone to post and get a reply and then go back and edit their post. Why not just make a new post or was it an attempt to make it look like the reply was not directed to the original post?

Two things come to mind. Most code enforcement officials at some point get the “GOD” syndrome and think that they can make the rules to fit their opinions. I have run into this many times over my career.

Most code officials think that the people they are addressing are stupid. They don’t realize that the contractor just might know more about it than they do. I would venture so far as to say that I have forgotten more than a some code enforcement officials will know in their entire life about the NEC. People are people and being a code enforcement official does not change this.

The man should have done his job as the oath he took outlined instead of trying to enforce something that he shouldn’t have.

The code official was directly responsible for the damage to the home due to his own arrogance in requiring a contractor to do something he was not licensed to do and it was done improperly. He should have lost his ability to inspect. In my opinion he is not worthy to work at a car wash.

As to being canned, well with the people holding office this election you may very well be correct. It seems as though they intend to take everything that I have paid in over my career away including my constitutional rights or at least the second one. Thank God that I had the foresight to prepare for my own retirement without the need of SS.


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 3, 2013)

So you are saying they must run a 4ga (250.66 rated) conductor all the way back to the panel, electrode or gec for the hot water piping, a 14ga to some convenient EGC claiming that is the one you think is likely to energize or just ignore it?

If I go with the likely to energize route, the 10ga EGC in the water heater is a likely bond.

I guess I am confused about what you are saying they have to do in your patch.



			
				jwelectric said:
			
		

> I am not saying anything other than what is in print. As an inspector that is all that one has that they can enforce.The NEC does not say to bond hot and/or cold water pipes, all it says is to bond the piping system.
> 
> If there is a water piping system that has both hot and cold connected to a kitchen sink the IPC is very clear that the only water piping system that can be connected to that kitchen sink is potable water.
> 
> ...


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 3, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> So you are saying they must run a 4ga (250.66 rated) conductor all the way back to the panel, electrode or gec for the hot water piping, a 14ga to some convenient EGC claiming that is the one you think is likely to energize or just ignore it?If I go with the likely to energize route, the 10ga EGC in the water heater is a likely bond.
> 
> I guess I am confused about what you are saying they have to do in your patch.


It is not my patch unless you are calling everywhere that the National Electrical Code is adopted my patch. It is not what I am saying it is what the Code Making Panel is saying.There is nothing to energize the pipe unless it is connected to something that uses power and is connected to the pipe therefore if it is not 100% total metal then yes the #10 in the branch circuit that supplies the electric water heater does the bonding and in the event it is a gas water heater then do nothing.

All this bonding that happens between the hot and cold at the water heater is perpetuated by a bunch of uneducated folks from years gone by. All one has to do is read and the education is easy.

The problem is most will ask until they find someone that agrees with them and just because the two agree it makes everyone who disagrees wrong. I spend most of my free time reading about the NEC and its history instead of asking the internet to do it for me. This makes understanding things like this much easier.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 3, 2013)

The hot and cold does not constitute two separate plumbing systems. They are part of the same potable water system. We have potable water, gray water, and waste water systems that might be in a building.

The rule to make metal plumbing pipes electrically continuous is no longer in the NEC. It was removed in the late 1970s.  The code making panel figured out that they had no control over the metal water pipes in a building and the plumbing codes allowed the repair of a metal water pipe to be done with non-metallic parts.

The plumber in most of the country was not allowed to install the bond as he did not have an electrical contractor’s license and to impose on the homeowner the cost of hiring two tradesmen was not going to happen.


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 3, 2013)

> The plumber in most of the country was not allowed to install the bond as he did not have an electrical contractor’s license and to impose on the homeowner the cost of hiring two tradesmen was not going to happen.


That is just the insanity brought to us by unions. In the rational world we have lots of trades connecting up bonding jumpers. 99% of the Ufers here are installed by the concrete steel guy and inspected by the structural inspector.

For that matter most water heaters are installed without a permit anyway.

Let's get down to the bottom line. If you saw a 250.66 bond wire around a water heater, would you make them remove it?


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 4, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> That is just the insanity brought to us by unions.


 Codes and adopted law not unions 





			
				gfretwell said:
			
		

> In the rational world we have lots of trades connecting up bonding jumpers. 99% of the Ufers here are installed by the concrete steel guy and inspected by the structural inspector.


 This is due to the lousy complacent inspection department not because it is legal.  Just because an inspection department will not follow the rules in no way makes something compliant or legal. Why are you allowing someone to bury someone else in a concrete footer for? Oh, you mean a concrete encased electrode, I think?





			
				gfretwell said:
			
		

> For that matter most water heaters are installed without a permit anyway.


 In new work?





			
				gfretwell said:
			
		

> Let's get down to the bottom line. If you saw a 250.66 bond wire around a water heater, would you make them remove it?


I will enforce any non-compliant installation, isn’t that my job?Now let’s get down to the bottom line. Do you require a bond between the hot and cold at the water heater?


----------



## tmurray (Feb 4, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> Most code officials think that the people they are addressing are stupid. They don’t realize that the contractor just might know more about it than they do. I would venture so far as to say that I have forgotten more than a some code enforcement officials will know in their entire life about the NEC. People are people and being a code enforcement official does not change this. The man should have done his job as the oath he took outlined instead of trying to enforce something that he shouldn’t have.
> 
> The code official was directly responsible for the damage to the home due to his own arrogance in requiring a contractor to do something he was not licensed to do and it was done improperly. He should have lost his ability to inspect. In my opinion he is not worthy to work at a car wash.


It does not help your case of calling out the intelligence of inspectors when you make absolute statements about what "most" inspectors do based on your own self-fulfilling prophecy. Secondly, we get it, you have a problem with authority and don't like inspectors because they can tell you what to do. Third, second hand stories of inspectors over-stepping authority don't hold much weight. The inspector may have said "I can't pass this until the vent is installed." and the electrician interpreted that to mean that he had to install it. Unless you were there you have no idea and even then our memories can be very tricky. Finally, we don't follow the NEC here as I'm in Canada, so forgive me if I don't completely grasp the problem, but what you are saying is that since the code does not allow that piping system to be bonded to another, it must be bonded independently or run to the cold water bond. Now this may be different there as you are using a different code, but we have what is called "Alternate Solutions". An Alternate Solution means you can take the intent of the code and provide a solution that varies from the code that the building official can consider code compliant. It appears that this is what is occurring here.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 4, 2013)

tmurray said:
			
		

> It does not help your case of calling out the intelligence of inspectors when you make absolute statements about what "most" inspectors do based on your own self-fulfilling prophecy.


 I have been teaching the state mandated classes at the community college for electrical inspectors for 12 years now so it not based on self-fulfilling anything but what I have seen over the years.Then we have discussion forums such as this one that puts the cap on the lid



			
				tmurray said:
			
		

> Secondly, we get it, you have a problem with authority and don't like inspectors because they can tell you what to do.


 There it is in a nut shell. They cannot tell me what to do although it seems like some think they can. They can only enforce the adopted codes. They have no more authority than the contractor.





			
				tmurray said:
			
		

> Third, second hand stories of inspectors over-stepping authority don't hold much weight. The inspector may have said "I can't pass this until the vent is installed." and the electrician interpreted that to mean that he had to install it. Unless you were there you have no idea and even then our memories can be very tricky.


 No my memory is not flawed and yes I know for a fact.  The inspectors here have to write things down and once that is done the hearsay goes out the window.





			
				tmurray said:
			
		

> Finally, we don't follow the NEC here as I'm in Canada, so forgive me if I don't completely grasp the problem, but what you are saying is that since the code does not allow that piping system to be bonded to another, it must be bonded independently or run to the cold water bond. Now this may be different there as you are using a different code, but we have what is called "Alternate Solutions". An Alternate Solution means you can take the intent of the code and provide a solution that varies from the code that the building official can consider code compliant. It appears that this is what is occurring here.


 Well one thing I am glad about is that here in good ole North Carolina a code official does not have this lead way. Here they take an oath to God to enforce what that is in print. Personally I will not design the electricians installation as that would be a very large liability on me.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 4, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> I have been teaching the state mandated classes at the community college for electrical inspectors for 12 years now so it not based on self-fulfilling anything but what I have seen over the years.Then we have discussion forums such as this one that puts the cap on the lid
> 
> There it is in a nut shell. They cannot tell me what to do although it seems like some think they can. They can only enforce the adopted codes. They have no more authority than the contractor.
> 
> ...


FYI; your state's inspectors =/= ALL inspectors.

We write corrections down here as well, but it seems highly suspect that an inspector would designate who was to preform the work, not just that work had to be complete prior to the completion of the inspection. For instance; we require a working kitchen faucet in dwellings. Should a faucet be non-functional I would write that the faucet must be operational as one of my deficiencies. This report is then given to the GC, who in turn calls the plumber to complete the work. If a contractor misinterprets that to mean that he himself must correct the violation then that is his problem. If the inspector designated who was to do the work I'm sorry, but that seams really stupid and I can't wrap my head around someone doing that, or that the electrician would go ahead and try to do it, not knowing anything about how to complete the work.

Just to correct a misinterpretation; while an Alternate Solution is ultimately approved or denied by the code official, they are typically proposed by industry experts or labs who have done significant testing and/or calculations for an assembly/method/product. Most of the liability remains at the feet of the expert. All the code official is responsible for is if they appear to be in compliance. I know for a fact that many areas in the US do accept these from when I worked for a fire protection engineer.

I am dismayed that you do not have enough faith in the education system that you are a part of to produce individuals capable of logical comparison between different practices and products.


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 4, 2013)

> I will enforce any non-compliant installation, isn’t that my job?Now let’s get down to the bottom line. Do you require a bond between the hot and cold at the water heater?


That wasn't the question

Would you make someone remove a jumper if it was there?



> Quote Originally Posted by gfretwell  View PostThat is just the insanity brought to us by unions.
> 
> Codes and adopted law not unions


... but it was the unions who drove the laws where they exist.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 4, 2013)

Here in NC the electrician calls the electrical inspector, the plumber calls the plumbing inspector, the HVAC calls the mechanical inspector and the general calls the building inspector.

The electrical inspector inspects the electrical and reports to the electrician and the plumbing inspector reports to the plumber so on and so forth.

As an electrician should I call for an electrical inspection and the “electrical” inspector write up a violation that violation would be directed to me the electrician and not to anyone else as I am the license holder.

We have many electrical inspectors that will write up draft stop on the electrician and hold the inspection till the draft stop is installed even though there is no mention of draft stop in the NEC. Draft stop is a building code issue and should be address by the building inspector to the general and not the electrical inspector to the electrician.

The electrical inspector who was a multi-trade inspector wrote the violation of the exhaust pipe on his electrical report which was addressed toward the electrical contractor and held the electrical inspection. The electrical contractor wanting to pass the inspection and get his certificate of compliance on the electrical then done as requested by the inspector and installed the vent pipe which brought up a law suit.

The electrical inspector has no authority to hold an electrical inspection due to the lack of work of another trade such as the vent pipe. He should have passed the electrical as no other faults were found with the electrical and if he had a problem with the vent he should have took it up with the general contractor.

As an inspector the installation must meet the letter of our adopted code. Should there be a need for an alternate method then I will pass that decision on to someone with more authority than me as I will not assume the liability of passing something that does not meet the letter of the code.

As to education, I have been directly involved with my state’s office of the fire marshal concerning education of inspectors in NC. I am certified to teach both the required three Levels of electrical inspection classes as well as continuing education of electrical inspectors. I for one think that the continuing education for both electrical contractors and inspectors should be based on the passing of a test at no less than every 12 months but alas it hasn’t happened in this state as yet.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 4, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> That wasn't the question Would you make someone remove a jumper if it was there?


 Not enough information to answer your question. If I found a short piece of copper between the pipes only at the water heater yes it would get removed before it would get my signature. The NEC is clear where a bonding jumper is to land and from one pipe to the other is not found anywhere in the NEC.

Now answer my question, do you require one to be installed between hot and cold at a water heater?



			
				gfretwell said:
			
		

> ... but it was the unions who drove the laws where they exist.


You are mistaken on this.


----------



## globe trekker (Feb 4, 2013)

> Draft stop is a building code issue and should be address by the building inspector to the general and not the electrical inspector to the electrician.


What about Article 300.21, 2008 NEC? Also, if you as the electrical contractor of record penetrates

a rated assembly with your electrical conduit / conductors / other, the general contractor is then

responsible for repairing your work?

.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 4, 2013)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> What about Article 300.21, 2008 NEC? Also, if you as the electrical contractor of record penetratesa rated assembly with your electrical conduit / conductors / other, the general contractor is then
> 
> responsible for repairing your work?


300.21 Spread of Fire or Products of Combustion.

Electrical installations in hollow spaces, vertical shafts, and ventilation or air-handling ducts shall be made so that the possible spread of fire or products of combustion will not be substantially increased. Openings around electrical penetrations through fire-resistant-rated walls, partitions, floors, or ceilings shall be firestopped using approved methods to maintain the fire resistance rating.

How many fire walls are there is dwelling units?

If he wants it fixed he will fix it. The one thing an electrical inspector can't do is quote a NEC sections that says it has to be fixed therefore the electrical inspector can't demand that it be fixed.


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 4, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> Not enough information to answer your question. If I found a short piece of copper between the pipes only at the water heater yes it would get removed before it would get my signature. The NEC is clear where a bonding jumper is to land and from one pipe to the other is not found anywhere in the NEC.
> 
> Now answer my question, do you require one to be installed between hot and cold at a water heater?
> 
> You are mistaken on this.


It is interesting that you choose to err on the side of danger instead of safety.

Supplemental bonding is illegal in Piedmont NC I guess. It must be a bare minimum code place.

As for me it has never come up. They bond around things without me asking in commercial and I let them.

As was noted above, I have not seen metal pipe in a new dwelling in 20 years.


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 4, 2013)

Perhaps I am just looking at this in the wrong way. If I want to live in loophole land, 250.104(A) only requires the first 5 feet of cold water line into the building to be bonded. At that point, why not just throw out 250.104(A) altogether. It is meaningless.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 4, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> It is interesting that you choose to err on the side of danger instead of safety.


 How is enforcing the code erring on the side of danger? Please explain. You keep making statements but without explanation. 





			
				gfretwell said:
			
		

> Supplemental bonding is illegal in Piedmont NC I guess. It must be a bare minimum code place.


 Where is this coming from? Are you saying that to install a conductor from hot to cold is somehow supplementing the bonding? Do you understand bonding at all?





			
				gfretwell said:
			
		

> As for me it has never come up. They bond around things without me asking in commercial and I let them. As was noted above, I have not seen metal pipe in a new dwelling in 20 years.


Last time I looked this was the residential forum the commercial forum is a little higher up on the page.When you did see it or should you see it tomorrow would you require the bond between the hot and cold at the water heater? Come on now it isn’t too hard to answer it only takes a yes or a no.



			
				gfretwell said:
			
		

> Perhaps I am just looking at this in the wrong way. If I want to live in loophole land, 250.104(A) only requires the first 5 feet of cold water line into the building to be bonded.


 I guess you answered one of my questions with this statement. It is obvious that you don’t have any knowledge about bonding and the bonding requirements found in the NEC. The first five feet that is used as a conductor to the underground metal water pipe is not in Part V but is in Part III of 250.250.68© (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.

Does Florida have continuing education for inspectors? Maybe a few classes would help.



			
				gfretwell said:
			
		

> At that point, why not just throw out 250.104(A) altogether. It is meaningless.


 Well at least you are beginning to learn. In today’s market 250.104(A) has very little meaning unless there is a complete metal water piping system installed and as you pointed out they are rare. The bonding of hot too cold at a water heater has always been meaningless except in the minds of a few that somehow see it as doing something that it could never accomplish.


----------



## gfretwell (Feb 4, 2013)

You summed it up in the last slur. You think there is no reason to bond water piping systems beyond the first non conductive part.  Why bother at all then?

OK I am out of this.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 4, 2013)

And I was going to jump in and try to calm things down. Neither of you are changing each others mind, and it is starting to get a bit nasty. So if you have anything new to add, without the jabs, feel free, otherwise, let it go.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 4, 2013)

But you didn't answer my question. Would you require the bond or not. Are you afraid to answer?


----------



## ICE (Feb 5, 2013)

I'm your huckleberry.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 5, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> I'm your huckleberry.


Bring in on lunger


----------



## ICE (Feb 5, 2013)

> jwelectric posted all of this:
> 
> This is the easiest way for a code enforcement official to get his butt called to the carpet should they run into the right contractor. Let me be clear, I am one of those contractors.  How was that for my first post?
> 
> ...


Is this a person worth listening to?  I can't speak for you, but I am done with him.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 5, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> Is this a person worth listening to?  I can't speak for you, but I am done with him.


Nice piece of work and you know better than some here that every word is true. Did it hurt?


----------



## Gregg Harris (Feb 5, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> Is this a person worth listening to?  I can't speak for you, but I am done with him.


Embarrrassing at best!


----------



## fatboy (Feb 5, 2013)

Back on point, or don't post!


----------



## ICE (Feb 5, 2013)

fatboy said:
			
		

> Back on point, or don't post!


Sit down fatboy....this needs to be done....you leave his nasty comments out there with out complaining so you shouldn't get excited if I take him on.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 5, 2013)

No you sit down, I'm doing what I'm supposed to.

Yes, there way to much nasty being thrown around, that's why EVERONE needs to back off and chill out. Keep comments related to the post, leave the attacks out, this means EVERYONE.


----------



## north star (Feb 5, 2013)

*= = =*

Maybe close and lock the topic ?.......Move on to another topic ?

*= = =*


----------



## ICE (Feb 5, 2013)

Fat chance fatboy.  You can sit on your hands and wait for the next time.

I come to the forum for fun mostly.

Insults interrupt my fun.

Ask yourself if the forum needs more or less of that behavior.

Ask yourself if others must share your sentiments.

Ask yourself if qouting someone is an attack.

Whatever you think, I'll not be silent


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 5, 2013)

To stay on topic and discuss this with the original poster if I am allowed.



			
				ICE said:
			
		

> We require a bonding jumper between cold and hot water pipes at the water heater on all service panel up-grades.


 Would you mind posting the verbiage you use to make this requirement.It is not found in the NEC as I have pointed out with my discussion with Greg and it is not found in the IRC either. Here is the section that would require metal water pipes to be bonded by the ICC.



> E3509.6 Metal water piping bonding. The metal water piping system 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 shall be sized in accordance with Table E3503.1. The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be accessible.


As most already know the ICC walks hand in hand with NFPA on their electrical documents.

Now show me the text you use to enforce the bonding of hot too cold at a water heater.


----------



## ICE (Feb 5, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> Now show me the text you use to enforce the bonding of hot too cold at a water heater.


The only thing I'll show you is the door.


----------



## jwelectric (Feb 5, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> The only thing I'll show you is the door.


 I thought you said, 





			
				ICE said:
			
		

> Is I am done with him.


 Is the reason you will not is because you can't?It was your statement that started this thread with the comment that "we require" now defend your requirement please


----------

