# subject to damage?



## ICE (Jul 21, 2013)

The GEC is a #6 located at the front of the house within a planter.  Would you call this subject to physical damage?


----------



## Gregg Harris (Jul 21, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> The GEC is a #6 located at the front of the house within a planter.  Would you call this subject to physical damage?


I would let it ride since it is tight to the wall, but if the rod was further out in the planter I would require protection.


----------



## Daddy-0- (Jul 21, 2013)

Looks good to me as well.


----------



## peach (Jul 21, 2013)

me too.. that's not where I would expect to see the water bond, though.


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 21, 2013)

The installer doesn't own a drill?


----------



## TheCommish (Jul 21, 2013)

why drill there was an available hole


----------



## jar546 (Jul 21, 2013)

Physical damage?  I say no, looks OK.

However, where is the 2nd ground rod or the printout of the ground resistance test?


----------



## jar546 (Jul 21, 2013)

And, where is the compliance with 250.94?


----------



## ICE (Jul 21, 2013)

An electrical service upgrade has been installed in order to add solar.  The solar company did the install.  They don't know a lot about the electrical trade and even less about plumbing.





The GEC is exposed at the back of the building where the panelboard is located and it needs protection (I don't like it exposed in the planter either).  The workman suggested armored #6.  Knowing that all ends of the armor shall be bonded, I told him that a better option would be to hit the hose bibb that's 6' from the panelboard, abandon the rod at the front and drive another rod >6' from the rod near the service.

He said that he knows that the GEC shall reach to within 5' of the point of entrance of the water main.  He further stated that he didn't want to get into the habit of doing it wrong so he does it exactly the same way every time.  He told me that he works primarily in Long Beach and that's a big city so I should require the same as they do in Long Beach.

Wanting to be agreeable, I told him that from now on, if we cross paths again, he and I, well doggone it, we'll do it the Long Beach way every time.

When I said that, I could see him relax....it was like I became safe to be around because he's got the Long Beach way down pat.

The inspection request was for el. service upgrade.  I arrived at 11:00am....they said that I was early because they requested a PM inspection.  I told them that I don't do these in the dark.


----------



## ICE (Jul 21, 2013)

TheCommish said:
			
		

> why drill there was an available hole


Chris might have been talking about securing the GEC to the surface that it runs upon.  Speaking of the runs....remind me to not touch anything while I'm there.


----------



## ICE (Jul 21, 2013)

jar546 said:
			
		

> And, where is the compliance with 250.94?


Whenever I see a code section I go take a look and when I saw the heading, I thought I knew all.  Then I noticed that there's a lot of words in 250.94 for such a simple concept.

Lo and behold, look at the exception.



> 250.94 Bonding for Other Systems. An intersystem
> 
> bonding termination for connecting intersystem bonding
> 
> ...


When does a building become "existing" The day it gets a CO?  The day after? A year later?  Obviously, this dwelling qualifies so what am I missing here?  It appears as though service upgrades are exempt.

But wait a minute now, if there are no intersystem bonding and grounding conductors the exception goes away.

Note that this is specific to the bonding and grounding conductors and not the system.

This is backwards.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 21, 2013)

When you replace an electrical service, the new service must be compliant.  When you replace an electrical service, you remove the old service and therefore remove the grounding system for the existing cable tv, telephone, fiber optic, etc. so you have to start over.Most of the time we see them split bolt onto the GEC which is not being replaced.  Sometimes we see that piece of crap that is attached to the meter base like this one:

View attachment 766


this one that gets removed.  But maybe the phone or cable company ran their own ground rod and we just don't see the connection in the photos.Still trying to find the wire to that 2nd rod too
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 766


/monthly_2013_07/572953c9b69ca_ScreenShot2013-07-21at2.15.33PM.png.1fb7b196d1a9cfc11246725da04ddb9d.png


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 21, 2013)

Was there a bond on that metal waste water pipe? I think that 250.104(A)(1) will require one


----------



## chris kennedy (Jul 21, 2013)

LOL, lets drop this right here.


----------



## ICE (Jul 21, 2013)

The other rod is at the opposite side of the house below the panelboard.


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> Was there a bond on that metal waste water pipe? I think that 250.104(A)(1) will require one


There is waste pipe, and there is water pipe but there is no waste water pipe.  And no fatboy, this is not a bong either.

Whatever this pipe is called, there's a good chance that the rod runs through it.  Oh crap there's the runs again.

I'm still waiting for someone to notice that the water main is plastic.


----------



## Rider Rick (Jul 22, 2013)

ICE is that a galvi cap on the copper pipe?


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2013)

Rider Rick said:
			
		

> ICE is that a galvi cap on the copper pipe?


I think so.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 22, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> but there is no waste water pipe.  .






This is a metal pipe and it carries water so is it bonded


----------



## mjf (Jul 22, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> The GEC is a #6 located at the front of the house within a planter.  Would you call this subject to physical damage?


Don't have my book handy to pull up the code section, but my understanding is that the entire 8 feet of ground rod must be fully driven into the ground to be compliant.  From looking at the picture, driving the last 3 or 4 inches of rod into the ground would certainly subject the wire to damage (as it would pull it off the wall, etc.)


----------



## mjf (Jul 22, 2013)

250.53 (g)


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 22, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> This is a metal pipe and it carries water so is it bonded


 This is a good example of the (s) found in 250.104(A)(1) and the bonding requirements found therein that anyone could post. Many will argue that the (s) means hot and cold but never require a bond to the metal pipe pictured. The (s) includes this pipe.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 22, 2013)

mjf said:
			
		

> 250.53 (g)


 A shovel of dirt and this job is complete


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> This is a metal pipe and it carries water so is it bonded


That metal pipe carries air.  Further on down the line, the pipe will carry water....and other stuff.  It is not likely to become energized and therefor it is not required to be bonded.

250.104(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*...


----------



## mjf (Jul 22, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> A shovel of dirt and this job is complete


So the code really means nothing??

Inspectors here require the end of the electrode to be below grade. Is it nit-picking? Maybe. The NEC either matters or it doesn't.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Jul 22, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> That metal pipe carries air.  Further on down the line, the pipe will carry water....and other stuff.  It is not likely to become energized and therefor it is not required to be bonded.250.104(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*...


"Likely to become energized" One of the poorest and vague stipulation to be used by the NEC.

This galvanized vent can be energized by several different means, frayed wiring in contact, underground high voltage transient, lightning strike, ground or air terminal through roof. All metal piping should be bonded together.


----------



## jar546 (Jul 22, 2013)

If the ahj feels as though it is likely to become energized then so it shall.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 22, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> That metal pipe carries air.  Further on down the line, the pipe will carry water....and other stuff.  It is not likely to become energized and therefor it is not required to be bonded.250.104(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*...


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).

This pipe is part of the waste water system and is required to be bonded period. The section does not say potable water it only says water system.

If there is 10 feet or more in contact with earth then it is also an electrode.

Likely to be energized has nothing to do with the bonding of this pipe.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 22, 2013)

mjf said:
			
		

> So the code really means nothing?? Inspectors here require the end of the electrode to be below grade. Is it nit-picking? Maybe. The NEC either matters or it doesn't.


 below grade if under dirt so a shovel of dirt and it is below grade


----------



## ICE (Jul 22, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> If there is 10 feet or more in contact with earth then it is also an electrode.


I am astounded at how much I don't know.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Jul 22, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> 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).
> 
> ...


I would list the cast iron in the ground attached to the metal DWV inside the structure would come under 250.52 (A) (8)

(8) Other Local Metal Underground Systems or Structures. Other local metal underground systems or structures such as piping systems, underground tanks, and underground metal well casings that are not bonded to a metal water pipe.


----------



## gfretwell (Jul 22, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> 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).
> 
> ...


JW, I thought you were the one saying sprinkler pipes did not need to be bonded and that there was no need to bond a water piping system beyond the first insulation joint (like the water heater)


----------



## mjf (Jul 22, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> below grade if under dirt so a shovel of dirt and it is below grade


I will have to respectfully disagree.  I'd either drive the rod home or bring the grade in the planter up above the electrode. A shovel full of dirt wouldn't cut it


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 22, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> JW, I thought you were the one saying sprinkler pipes did not need to be bonded and that there was no need to bond a water piping system beyond the first insulation joint (like the water heater)


I am sorry but I don’t see the comparison between a sprinkler and a metal waste pipe. 250.52(A)(8) requires it to be used as an electrode and 250.104(A)(1) requires it to be bonded at some accessible point. There is no requirement to bond at a water heater to be found anywhere in the NEC.

NFPA document Standard 13 forbids the use of a sprinkler system as an electrode.

Now explain just what your point was so a poor old back woods county boy like me can understand, please.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 22, 2013)

mjf said:
			
		

> I will have to respectfully disagree.  I'd either drive the rod home or bring the grade in the planter up above the electrode. A shovel full of dirt wouldn't cut it


(G) Rod and Pipe Electrodes. The electrode shall be installed such that at least 2.44 m (8 ft) of length is in contact with the soil. It shall be driven to a depth of not less than 2.44 m (8 ft) except that, where rock bottom is encountered, the electrode shall be driven at an oblique angle not to exceed 45 degrees from the vertical or, where rock bottom is encountered at an angle up to 45 degrees, the electrode shall be permitted to be buried in a trench that is at least 750 mm (30 in.) deep. The upper end of the electrode shall be flush with or below ground level unless the aboveground end and the grounding electrode conductor attachment are protected against physical damage as specified in 250.10.

I am sorry but I can't see a requirement for the soil to be level all around the electrode.

Disagreements are good as someone has a chance to learn things


----------



## gfretwell (Jul 22, 2013)

A sprinkler is a "water piping system" and I see no reason why it should not be bonded, as is the hot water side of a domestic water piping system, whether you do it at the water heater or some other accessible place.


----------



## mjf (Jul 22, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> (G) Rod and Pipe Electrodes. The electrode shall be installed such that at least 2.44 m (8 ft) of length is in contact with the soil. It shall be driven to a depth of not less than 2.44 m (8 ft) except that, where rock bottom is encountered, the electrode shall be driven at an oblique angle not to exceed 45 degrees from the vertical or, where rock bottom is encountered at an angle up to 45 degrees, the electrode shall be permitted to be buried in a trench that is at least 750 mm (30 in.) deep. The upper end of the electrode shall be flush with or below ground level unless the aboveground end and the grounding electrode conductor attachment are protected against physical damage as specified in 250.10.  I am sorry but I can't see a requirement for the soil to be level all around the electrode.
> 
> Disagreements are good as someone has a chance to learn things


Not sure who's being stubborn, you, me or us both.

OK, You throw your shovel full of dirt on the end of the electrode and pass your inspection....2 rains later it will no longer be code compliant.  I don't really think that is the intent of the code, do you?

I'm not one to go way above and beyond code minimums, but, c'mon man, just drive that rod in.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Jul 22, 2013)

mjf said:
			
		

> Not sure who's being stubborn, you, me or us both. OK, You throw your shovel full of dirt on the end of the electrode and pass your inspection....2 rains later it will no longer be code compliant.  I don't really think that is the intent of the code, do you?
> 
> I'm not one to go way above and beyond code minimums, but, c'mon man, just drive that rod in.


250.10 Protection of Ground Clamps and Fittings.

Ground clamps or other fittings shall be approved for general use without protection or shall be protected from physical damage as indicated in (1) or (2) as follows:

(1) In installations where they are not likely to be damaged

(2) Where enclosed in metal, wood, or equivalent protective covering

 The clamp is next to the building and is tested and listed for 500# separation pressure, I am pretty sure that would comply with "approved for general use without protection" and 1) In installations where they are not likely to be damaged  This could also be a ten foot rod driven to 9 feet 6"


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 23, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> as is the hot water side of a domestic water piping system, whether you do it at the water heater or some other accessible place.


The hot water is part of the potable water system and does not in and of itself constitute a different water system. The hot and cold are part of the same system. They do not constitute two different systems.

A simple question that should be very easy to answer, where in the NEC is the requirement to bond the hot to the cold?


----------



## ICE (Jul 23, 2013)

mjf said:
			
		

> Not sure who's being stubborn, you, me or us both. OK, You throw your shovel full of dirt on the end of the electrode and pass your inspection....2 rains later it will no longer be code compliant.  I don't really think that is the intent of the code, do you?
> 
> I'm not one to go way above and beyond code minimums, but, c'mon man, just drive that rod in.


So the rod is 4" short in it's contact with the earth.  How about when the hole is drilled through a couple feet of concrete?  There are two of them you know.  Armor and the attendant clamp aren't supposed to be buried.  So we get rods with a few inches sticking out of the ground and I don't know if it is an 8', 10' or 2' long rod.  Did I mention that there are two of them?

Here's a pair for you.  I was the inspector at the footing inspection and I was back for roof sheathing when I spotted these.  My first question was, what happened to the uffer?  Well they said that Edison changed up the location of the service and the uffer is 40' away.  To top it off, they bonded the water pipe at a hose bibb in the back and there is copper water main at the front.

I didn't ask any questions about the rods because they won't matter.





At footing inspections I always tell them to strip the forms green and get the wood out.  It's like I am talking to a wall.


----------



## gfretwell (Jul 23, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> The hot water is part of the potable water system and does not in and of itself constitute a different water system. The hot and cold are part of the same system. They do not constitute two different systems.A simple question that should be very easy to answer, where in the NEC is the requirement to bond the hot to the cold?


I agree the hot does not need to be bonded directly to the cold but it does need to be bonded to the grounding system somewhere.


----------



## Rider Rick (Jul 23, 2013)

In photo #one how can a ground rod be right up tight to a stem wall when there is a footing?


----------



## ICE (Jul 23, 2013)

Rider Rick said:
			
		

> In photo #one how can a ground rod be right up tight to a stem wall when there is a footing?


Ya that's right....Chris said that they don't have a drill.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 23, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> I agree the hot does not need to be bonded directly to the cold but it does need to be bonded to the grounding system somewhere.


Are you saying that the hot and cold constitute two different systems?


----------



## gfretwell (Jul 23, 2013)

Electrically they are if you don't put in a bonding jumper over any dielectric fitting.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 23, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> Electrically they are if you don't put in a bonding jumper over any dielectric fitting.


Now you are confusing me to the point of insanity. Please take a couple of minutes and explain how electricity can make two different piping systems out of potable water.

If I understand what you are saying you seem to be implying that there is some sort of requirement to make the potable water system electrically continuous. Is this a correct assumption?

Assuming that this is what you are meaning could you please show me this requirement in any code. It doesn’t have to be the NEC it can be any code out there. I wanna see is not a code by the way.

With all those different types of couplings and unions on the market today one would have to invest a lot of monies into a plumbing system bonding for electrical continuity.

You mentioned bonding of a sprinkler system. If the sprinkler system is installed using grooved couplings are you going to require a bonding jumper at every coupling? This is a threadless coupling that has rubber on the inside that seals each pipe as it is joined together.

The bottom line is so simple, if a code enforcement official posts a violation this violation MUST be found somewhere in the codes. I have asked many times for this code section to no avail. Once again I ask for a simple code section that requires this continuity. No code section equals no violation.


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 23, 2013)

I can certainly get on board with gfret's concept.  That is exactly how we have viewed in in our jurisdiciton for quite some time now, and have required either a jumper between the hot and cold water pipe systems, or both systems to be bonded.  The electrican almost always chose a jumper.  This has become a moot point of late, especially in residential; I cannot remember the last time I saw anything other than pex in a home.

The '08 NEC states in part:  250.104 (A)(1) General:  Metal water piping system(s)....shall be bonded...

Unless you can verify electrical continuity between the hot and cold supply lines, you have two separate systems.  IMHO and according to our department's interpretation.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 23, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> I can certainly get on board with gfret's concept.  That is exactly how we have viewed in in our jurisdiciton for quite some time now, and have required either a jumper between the hot and cold water pipe systems, or both systems to be bonded.  The electrican almost always chose a jumper.  This has become a moot point of late, especially in residential; I cannot remember the last time I saw anything other than pex in a home.  The '08 NEC states in part:  250.104 (A)(1) General:  Metal water piping system(s)....shall be bonded...
> 
> Unless you can verify electrical continuity between the hot and cold supply lines, you have two separate systems.  IMHO and according to our department's interpretation.


Once again (for the fiftieth time) please show me verbiage from any code that requires this ridiculous bonding that is nothing more than a waste of our natural resources.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 23, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> I can certainly get on board with gfret's concept.  That is exactly how we have viewed in in our jurisdiciton for quite some time now, and have required either a jumper between the hot and cold water pipe systems, or both systems to be bonded.  The electrican almost always chose a jumper.  This has become a moot point of late, especially in residential; I cannot remember the last time I saw anything other than pex in a home.  The '08 NEC states in part:  250.104 (A)(1) General:  Metal water piping system(s)....shall be bonded...
> 
> Unless you can verify electrical continuity between the hot and cold supply lines, you have two separate systems.  IMHO and according to our department's interpretation.


Once again all I am asking for is verbiage that shows this being a requirement. A standard of practice is not code verbiage.

As code enforcement officials all we can do is enforce code. We are not allowed to enforce a standard of practice and just because this is the way it is done here is not code verbiage.

The ICC plumbing code says very clearly that there is only one potable water supply that serves the fixtures in a dwelling unit that people can bathe, wash, drink, or cook with. The plumbing codes do not say that there are two potable water supplies in a dwelling.

How one sees something does not matter without some sort of verbiage from the code being enforced.

The requirement was moved from 250-80 to 250-104 between the 1996 and the 1999 code cycles but the (s) was not added until the 2002 code cycle. Does this mean that it was not until 2002 that this practice was started? No! This practice is a holdover from the 1970s when there was very clear verbiage that required any and all metal piping systems installed in a building to be made and kept electrically continuous.

In the 1999 code cycle in 250-104(b) the requirement; “Each above ground portion of a gas piping system upstream from the equipment shutoff valve shall be electrically continuous and bonded to the grounding electrode system.” But there was no such requirement for a metal water piping system in 250-104(a)(1).

The requirement found in 250-104(b) of the 1999 cycle was removed in the 2002 code cycle and there is no longer a requirement to make gas pipes electrically continuous. Prior to the 1999 edition there was no mention of gas piping systems at all, just other metal piping systems.

Either show the verbiage used to enforce the bonding of the cold to hot or cold to service and hot to service or admit that there is no such requirement. Either show the requirement to make a metal water piping system electrically continuous or admit that there is no such requirement.

Once again (for the fiftieth time) please show me verbiage from any code that requires this ridiculous bonding that is nothing more than a waste of our natural resources. I have been a study of the electrical codes for more than 45 years now and will not accept anything other than what is written in the code.


----------



## Rick18071 (Jul 23, 2013)

wouldn't the shower connect the hot and cold?


----------



## gfretwell (Jul 23, 2013)

Building codes are tombstone documents. That language will be tightened up when the next person dies ... in those places that do not think it is a danger to have large portions of the water piping system ungrounded.

I agree plastic has replaced metal in most places to the point that this may be moot for most people.

I have not seen metal pipe in new construction for 20 years around here.

Our problem was metal studs and that was the only modification to the code in Florida for over a decade. We had a guy die from energized studs. Now they have to be bonded.


----------



## JPohling (Jul 23, 2013)

seems pretty straightforward to me...............if you cannot provide a code section requiring this work then how can you require that the contractor comply?   Have you somehow amended the code section in your jurisdiction to reflect this?  You say......"Now they have to be bonded"  what would compel them to do this if upon asking for the code section you cannot provide one?   This could, perhaps be a good idea, and most people would care to error on the side of safety, but your position does not seem to be supportable.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 23, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> Building codes are tombstone documents. That language will be tightened up when the next person dies ... in those places that do not think it is a danger to have large portions of the water piping system ungrounded.


I suppose that it is obvious that you either cannot or will not post the codes that require this bonding so would you please explain just what all the danger is that you are now implying that exist by an unbounded pipe or portion of pipe?

In my personal opinion, if the code making panel charged with the responsibility of writing the safety codes such as the National Electrical Code thinks that there is no longer a need to require that metal pipes be made and kept electrically continuous then the opinion of some electrical inspector somewhere in this world carries absolutely no weight at all.

Anyone who studies the codes for any amount of time can see that the requirement to make and keep metal pipes was once in place but over time has been removed. There must be some explanation for the removal of these requirements but alas what do those folks know.

Maybe we should just blindly make our own rules without any substantiation of any reasoning just because we are inspectors. Why do we even need these code making panels for in the first place. Are they not able to see all those tombstones being erected all over the place due to their lack of knowledge of the dangers they are exposing folks too?

WAIT JUST A MINUITE! Is it possible that they might be the ones who are right but we just don’t want to admit that we are wrong so to prove our point we call them stupid? Maybe my opinion is far better than theirs although I cannot show one thing to back my opinion I know that I am right so code panel be damned.

Doesn’t that last sentence sound sad? Isn’t there a lot of truth in that statement as we wonder around these sites listening to code enforcement officials expressing and enforcing their opinion as though they are far superior to those chosen few that write these codes?

As a contractor the inspector will show me the code I am in violation of or there is no violation. As a code enforcement official I will not try to enforce anything that I cannot back with code verbiage and I don’t care what the rest of the folks in my department think. I took my oath of office with God not the rest of the department.


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 23, 2013)

JW, I get your point.  I spend a LOT of time reviewing code before I write a violation notice, for exactly the reason you state.  I don't want to enforce a code requirment that isn't there.

I also know that not every single detail is itemized in the code books.  Sometimes a building official needs to look at the code, understand the reasons behind the code, study the industry and the methods and materials available, and make a judgement call.  The bonding requirement between hot and cold is a judgement call, based on the understanding of the electrical code as written in roughly 2006.  Perhaps the code has changed to the extent that we need to revisit this issue.

However, I do have a question for clarification; I'm trying to learn here, not just argue.  If the need to require a water pipe system electrically continuous is no longer present, why is there any need to bond any portion of the water pipe system? If you have two electrically separate water piping systems (not potable water systems, metal piping systems) is it prudent to bond one, and not the other?


----------



## gfretwell (Jul 23, 2013)

250.104(A) says "metal water piping SYSTEM(S)" not just the first little segment of the cold side. It goes on to describe the jumpers required.

No they did not list every place a jumper is required but they do say "system(s)". Unless you think the hot water side is not part of the system, it needs to be bonded.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 23, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> JW, I get your point.  I spend a LOT of time reviewing code before I write a violation notice, for exactly the reason you state.  I don't want to enforce a code requirment that isn't there. I also know that not every single detail is itemized in the code books.  Sometimes a building official needs to look at the code, understand the reasons behind the code, study the industry and the methods and materials available, and make a judgement call.  The bonding requirement between hot and cold is a judgement call, based on the understanding of the electrical code as written in roughly 2006.  Perhaps the code has changed to the extent that we need to revisit this issue.
> 
> However, I do have a question for clarification; I'm trying to learn here, not just argue.  If the need to require a water pipe system electrically continuous is no longer present, why is there any need to bond any portion of the water pipe system? If you have two electrically separate water piping systems (not potable water systems, metal piping systems) is it prudent to bond one, and not the other?


I also visit sites like this one for a better understanding of the safety aspect of the codes. The phrase system(s) found in 250.104 will include as pictured at the start of this thread the potable water and the waste water pipes of a building should they be complete metal piping systems.Should there not be electrical continuity between any parts of a metal water system then that system is not a complete metal water system and the provisions of 250.104(B) will apply. This is according to the Panel Statement given cycle after cycle of the proposals for code changes.

There are many out there that think that the hot and cold constitute two different systems but the plumbing code calls both hot and cold part of one potable water system. The plumbing code is very clear that there is only one potable water system and the hot and cold does not constitute two different potable water systems as some seem to believe.

There is also the gray water system that could occur when someone goes on public water while having a well. In this case there would be three water systems in that building.

Understanding the grounding aspect of the requirements of the NEC helps greatly understand the purpose of bonding of metal pipes in a building. We ground (connect to earth) our systems for four reasons which are outlined in 250.4(A)(1).

With metal water pipes in a large city that also has underground metal water pipes the bonding of the metal water pipe gives current a path back to the transformer from which it came in the event of a lost neutral. As many neutrals are lost the bonding of the pipes becomes more important.

Also during a lightning strike when the electrons are accumulating under the surface of earth or vice versa should you believe the event is the other way then the elevated metal anything is in the path of this charge. Being that we handle water all day long then having these metal pipes bonded back to earth keeps them at the same potential.

I could go on with more than just this little bit of information but it does get one into the thought process about the bonding.

What can’t be expected is to be able to keep the metal water pipes electrically continuous as there is nothing in the plumbing codes that addresses this issue. In other words an electrical system can be inspected today and tomorrow someone replace a section of the metal water pipe and then the bonding is mute.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 23, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> 250.104(A) says "metal water piping SYSTEM(S)" not just the first little segment of the cold side. It goes on to describe the jumpers required.No they did not list every place a jumper is required but they do say "system(s)". Unless you think the hot water side is not part of the system, it needs to be bonded.


Metal water piping systems……one potable and one waste water would be systems do you agree.

From the 2002 cycle

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 (1), (2), (3), or (4) 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).

Metal water piping systemS meaning more than one piping system such as potable and waste water

Bonding jumperS one for the potable and the other for the waste

So what is your point?


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 23, 2013)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> Unless you think the hot water side is not part of the system, it needs to be bonded.


Yes it is part of the potable water. When bonding the metal water pipe one could land the bonding jumper on the hot instead of the cold if one choses


----------



## ICE (Jul 23, 2013)

You forgot to remind everybody that the sewer pipe is a grounding electrode.

That's a big deal and I  didn't know that until you pointed it out.  In as much as the code requires all grounding electrodes that are present to be utilized the other codes must apply too.  Within five feet and all of that....could you give us an example of the correct clamp?  Oh and a code section?


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 23, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> Metal water piping systemS meaning more than one piping system such as potable and waste water
> 
> Bonding jumperS one for the potable and the other for the waste
> 
> So what is your point?


Or - one hot water piping system, and one cold water piping system, if they are not electrically continuous.   

On a more serious note - does anyone have a NEC based definition of a metal water piping system?  Not IPC - I don't think their definitions have taken electrical issues into consideration.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Jul 23, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> You forgot to remind everybody that the sewer pipe is a grounding electrode.That's a big deal and I  didn't know that until you pointed it out.  In as much as the code requires all grounding electrodes that are present to be utilized the other codes must apply too.  Within five feet and all of that....could you give us an example of the correct clamp?  Oh and a code section?


The sewer line would only be a grounding electrode if the hubs where joined with lead and not  rubber.


----------



## ICE (Jul 23, 2013)

Gregg Harris said:
			
		

> The sewer line would only be a grounding electrode if the hubs where joined with lead and not  rubber.


It comes in ten foot lengths.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Jul 23, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> It comes in ten foot lengths.


 True but if the joints where not lead joints there would not be continuity between sections or fittings, now that is not to say that a bonding jumper could not be installed across a joint and it would be compliant. I know I pored lead joints well up into the 80s and into the 90s on repairs or remodels.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 23, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Or - one hot water piping system, and one cold water piping system, if they are not electrically continuous.    On a more serious note - does anyone have a NEC based definition of a metal water piping system?  Not IPC - I don't think their definitions have taken electrical issues into consideration.


You can go to nfpa.org then click on codes and standards to search the Report on Proposals and find out what they are saying about 250.104(A)(1) and get a better understanding of just how silly it is to bond hot to cold. In every code cycle listed the code making panel keeps saying it must be a complete metal piping system. In basic electricity we learn that a complete metal pipe has continuity from one end to the other so if there is no electrical continuity it is not a complete metal piping system and would fall under 250.104(B)

This is the reason that the code section only says that the point of attachment must be accessible and nothing about continuity.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Jul 23, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> You can go to nfpa.org then click on codes and standards to search the Report on Proposals and find out what they are saying about 250.104(A)(1) and get a better understanding of just how silly it is to bond hot to cold. In every code cycle listed the code making panel keeps saying it must be a complete metal piping system. In basic electricity we learn that a complete metal pipe has continuity from one end to the other so if there is no electrical continuity it is not a complete metal piping system and would fall under 250.104(B)
> 
> This is the reason that the code section only says that the point of attachment must be accessible and nothing about continuity.


What if anything gets accomplished if the water piping is bonded as required in 250.104 (A) (1) is there a purpose or intent to the requirement?


----------



## ICE (Jul 24, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> You forgot to remind everybody that the sewer pipe is a grounding electrode.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a big deal and I  didn't know that until you pointed it out.  In as much as the code requires all grounding electrodes that are present to be utilized the other codes must apply too.  Within five feet and all of that....could you give us an example of the correct clamp?  Oh and a code section?

Please jwelectric,

I am willing to learn and you are willing to teach so help me help the electricians.  Many of them want to get it right and I need a code section if I'm going to ask them to dig up a sewer grounding electrode.

Oh and trust me, neither side will relent on the bonding hot water pipe issue.  Plenty has been said in several threads.

I'd say Good & Plenty... and now fatboy is off to 7-Eleven.

Besides that, we have a new issue with the sewer electrode.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 24, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> Please jwelectric,I am willing to learn and you are willing to teach so help me help the electricians.  Many of them want to get it right and I need a code section if I'm going to ask them to dig up a sewer grounding electrode.


I have been involved with the study of the NEC for many years and have been teaching it for a long time.

As an educator of this book I teach only what is published and adopted in my area. I do not teach what is published in other books such as the Handbook or Soars on grounding but only what is printed in our adopted codes.

What I have seen over the years is people don’t want to take the time to learn what is printed but instead blindly follow what others say even when there is a disagreement. There is a mindset with a lot of inspectors that they are some almighty force that has all control and are the ones that have to teach the backwoods electricians instead of doing what they were hired to do and that is simply enforce the words adopted in their area.

Part III of Article 250 gives guidance on the installation of the grounding electrode, the electrode conductor and the conductors used to bond all the electrodes together.

Section 250.52 list eight items that are to be used as the electrode system if they are present. In this section under subsection (1) is the mention of metal water pipes. There is no mention of the type of water pipes that are to be used as this electrode. This would include any and all metals pipes used for the transport of water be it potable, gray, waste, or circulation water for a nuclear reactor.

In subsection eight of this section there is the mention of other local metal underground systems or structures such as piping systems, underground tanks, and underground metal well casings that are not bonded to a metal water pipe.

So we have two sections in the NEC that addresses piping that is underground. What we do is take other parts of the code and get complacent in the acceptance that this is the only way things are to be done. By this I am addressing the use of the first five feet of potable water after it enters a building. This first five feet is not electrode but instead it is only a path to the electrode. This is found in 250.53(D)(1) “Continuity of the grounding path or the bonding connection to interior piping”

It is only the underground part of the water pipe that is electrode. This is found in 250.52(A)(1), “A metal underground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0 m (10 ft) or more” and in 250.52(A)(8), “Other local metal underground systems or structures such as piping systems” and even includes a metal oil tank used to store heating oil also found in 250.52(A)(8), “underground tanks.”



			
				ICE said:
			
		

> Oh and trust me, neither side will relent on the bonding hot water pipe issue.  Plenty has been said in several threads.


 This blind eye that people hold toward the enforcement of what is adopted is why there is so much disaccord between contractors and inspectors especially when there is an inspector with the attitude that they are sent from heaven to teach the poor backwoods electricians. Many times on this subject I have asked what code section that is going to be used to enforce this stupid practice and no one has yet given me one. If there is no section to enforce this act then there is no way it can be enforced. We spend hours trying to show how we are correct in our thoughts instead of spending just a few seconds showing the code section we use to enforce our opinions.

As an electrical contractor I will spend every dollar I make to fight such stupidity and waste of my profits on a job to just blindly do what I am told without any code section being stated that I am in violation of, in other words when it comes to inspecting my work the inspector will either put up or shut up. Thank God we have laws in NC to prevent an inspector from saying “this is what I want to see before you pass.”

As an electrical inspector who has taken an oath to enforce the adopted codes in my area I am very careful to enforce only what is written not what a bunch of people that spends less than 10 minutes a day studying what they are hired to enforce have to say.

In most inspection departments throughout this nation the people hired to enforce the codes in their area haven’t opened the book they are hired to enforce except for their continuing education seminars. Very few even have a book present when doing an inspection. They inspect based on what they heard instead of opening a book to see for sure.

This hot to cold issue is a prime example of this practice. If it wasn’t then somewhere someone would be able to show where in the codes this required.

As an instructor of several NFPA documents one that comes to mind with the standard of practice of this is how we have always done this is NFPA 70E. After someone get hurts real bad the first thing out of their mouths is, “I’ve been doing this for years like this.” Didn’t stop them from getting hurt.

This has become the mindset of inspectors and electricians, “I’ve been doing it like this for years.” Well this practice needs to stop and time spent studying the codes set forth for guide lines for the installation.


----------



## Darren Emery (Jul 24, 2013)

JW - you seem to enjoy throwing around inflamatory and insulting language.  I appreciate a person's passion to get it right, and to educate others.  However, your language makes it difficult to accept you as sincere.

I have indeed shown you what code section our jurisdiction has used to come to what I believe is a resonable conclusion. We may be wrong (not at all convinced of that yet - even your response to my last post makes me think we are spot on), and if so, we will change our policy.

ICE is correct - we're working over a dead horse here.  I'm now wondering about this sewer pipe grounding electrode.  Does ANYONE still use metal sewer pipe?


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 24, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> JW - you seem to enjoy throwing around inflamatory and insulting language.  I appreciate a person's passion to get it right, and to educate others.  However, your language makes it difficult to accept you as sincere. I have indeed shown you what code section our jurisdiction has used to come to what I believe is a resonable conclusion. We may be wrong (not at all convinced of that yet - even your response to my last post makes me think we are spot on), and if so, we will change our policy.
> 
> ICE is correct - we're working over a dead horse here.  I'm now wondering about this sewer pipe grounding electrode.  Does ANYONE still use metal sewer pipe?


Darren

I appreciate your input into this discussion but you made the comment that “Unless you can verify electrical continuity between the hot and cold supply lines, you have two separate systems. IMHO and according to our department's interpretation.”

Where is it found in the NEC that electrical continuity is a requirement? It cannot be found except in past code cycles and has been removed from the present codes. There is no way that the NEC can mandate that a plumber make a repair using metal to a metal piping and it sure can’t mandate that the plumber install a bonding jumper therefore the code making panel has removed the requirement that metal pipes be made and kept electrically continuous.

In the post by Ice he made the comment that he needed to educate the electrical contractors instead of enforcing the codes he was hired to enforce therefore my comments concerning the “education” of electrical contractors.

We sometimes forget just what our jobs as inspector entails, enforcing the codes as printed not as interpreted. Sometimes this will entail the studying of other codes and in this case the studying of the plumbing codes which clearly state that only potable water is to be connected to a kitchen sink, not potable cold and another potable hot water system. The system is one potable water system. No requirement to ensure electrical continuity and no there is not two water systems.


----------



## globe trekker (Jul 24, 2013)

> Does ANYONE still use metal sewer pipe?


Some RDP's still spec. cast iron; typically the "no hub" type in hospitals and other larger

medical facilities.   Not sure why!  Also, not sure about the various types of industrial

facilities.

The cast iron piping is still an approved type of piping that can be used.   The pouring

of lead is mostly verboten by OSHA.   Working with molten lead can be a quick education!

.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Jul 24, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> JW - you seem to enjoy throwing around inflamatory and insulting language.  I appreciate a person's passion to get it right, and to educate others.  However, your language makes it difficult to accept you as sincere. I have indeed shown you what code section our jurisdiction has used to come to what I believe is a resonable conclusion. We may be wrong (not at all convinced of that yet - even your response to my last post makes me think we are spot on), and if so, we will change our policy.
> 
> ICE is correct - we're working over a dead horse here.  I'm now wondering about this sewer pipe grounding electrode.  Does ANYONE still use metal sewer pipe?


Cast iron is still used in commercial application and in some high end homes, but for the most part even when used rubber gaskets or Nohub bands are used.

In older homes cast iron sewers with lead joints and indoor galvanized or DWV copper was a common mix.

250.52(A) (8)

(8) Other Local Metal Underground Systems or Structures. Other local metal underground systems or structures such as piping systems, underground tanks, and underground metal well casings that are not bonded to a metal water pipe.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 24, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> Unless you can verify electrical continuity between the hot and cold supply lines, you have two separate systems.  IMHO and according to our department's interpretation.


 With the deepest of respect I need you to explain something to me.If this pipe has continuity what would you call the system?

Would it be one potable water system consisting of hot and cold or would you call it something different?

To keep this going, if there was a nonmetallic method used at the water heater and we did call it two different systems and for one reason or another a nonmetallic fitting was used somewhere on the cold water side of this system would we then have three systems?

To extend this one more step, should there be a nonmetallic fitting used in both the cold and hot side of the piping system would there now be four systems?

One last question, at what point would you stop requiring a bonding jumper to be installed around nonmetallic fittings? Should there be nothing but copper stubs at the plumbing fixtures would you require them to be bonded around or back to the service?

Now use these stubs and their length to discern at what point that the bonding around needs to stop and the requirement that is assumed to make metal water pipes electrically continuous. If the pipes were required to have electrical continuity then every stub would be required to be bonded back to one of the four places outlined in 250.104(A)(1).


----------



## JPohling (Jul 24, 2013)

Darren Emery said:
			
		

> JW - you seem to enjoy throwing around inflamatory and insulting language.  I appreciate a person's passion to get it right, and to educate others.  However, your language makes it difficult to accept you as sincere.


I do not interpret JW's language that way at all.  I hear someone trying to convince the masses that their interpretations are not code supported on this matter.  And after multiple requests for code references that would support what seems to be the general consensus there has been no meaningful revelation, but continuing conjecture.  One is bound to get a bit frustrated.


----------



## mjesse (Jul 24, 2013)

JPohling said:
			
		

> I do not interpret JW's language that way at all.  I hear someone trying to convince the masses that their interpretations are not code supported on this matter.  And after multiple requests for code references that would support what seems to be the general consensus there has been no meaningful revelation, but continuing conjecture.  One is bound to get a bit frustrated.


Agreed.

Since I've worked both sides of the counter, so to speak, I learned that it's very convenient for a Code Official to end the conversation at "because I said so"

If a contractor disagrees, it can seem as if they're arguing with a wall. What is needed is healthy discussion and debate (hey, that's what our forum is for)

JW raises some great points. It has made me question the way I interpret system(S) bonding. I am never quick to take a stand on one side or the other without knowing all the facts. I think there is enough gray area here to really go either way.

If you're comfortable requesting a jumper at the WH and done, fine. Most contractors will just go along with it merely to satisfy your interpretation.

But the greater questions by JW and others should considered.

$0.02

mj


----------



## mjf (Jul 24, 2013)

Here's an iron for the fire.

I propose it's all the same water system.

Water in, water out, some of it heated, some of it flushed, etc.

If continuity isn't required to be proven between hot and cold water, than continuity also wouldn't be required to be proven between potable water and waste water piping.

In conclusion, bonding the incoming water pipe covers cold water, hot water, and waste piping.


----------



## ICE (Jul 25, 2013)

jwelectric,



> jwelectric said:
> 
> This pipe is part of the waste water system and is required to be bonded period. The section does not say potable water it only says water system.
> 
> ...





			
				ICE said:
			
		

> Please jwelectric,I am willing to learn and you are willing to teach so help me help the electricians.  Many of them want to get it right and I need a code section if I'm going to ask them to dig up a sewer grounding electrode.
> 
> Oh and trust me, neither side will relent on the bonding hot water pipe issue.  Plenty has been said in several threads.
> 
> ...


Cat got your tongue?


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 25, 2013)

ICE said:
			
		

> jwelectric,Cat got your tongue?


Read post 66 and you have your answer


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 25, 2013)

mjf said:
			
		

> Here's an iron for the fire.I propose it's all the same water system.
> 
> Water in, water out, some of it heated, some of it flushed, etc.
> 
> ...


 A simple question for you please, show where electrical continuity is required


----------



## mjf (Jul 25, 2013)

mjf said:
			
		

> Here's an iron for the fire.I propose it's all the same water system.
> 
> Water in, water out, some of it heated, some of it flushed, etc.
> 
> ...





			
				jwelectric said:
			
		

> A simple question for you please, show where electrical continuity is required


Re-read my post. I was agreeing with you that electrical continuity need not be proven, BUT, then there's also no need to bond a sewer pipe, since it's all part of the same water system (or show me the code that says it isn't).


----------



## ICE (Jul 25, 2013)

jwelectric said:
			
		

> Read post 66 and you have your answer


Unfortunately I did read it and didn't find any explanation of your invented sewer pipe grounding electrode.  Nope and no code to go with it.  So let's try this....why don't you put up or shut up.

Hijacking threads with your crusade against rationality is tiresome.


----------



## jwelectric (Jul 25, 2013)

mjf said:
			
		

> Re-read my post. I was agreeing with you that electrical continuity need not be proven, BUT, then there's also no need to bond a sewer pipe, since it's all part of the same water system (or show me the code that says it isn't).


 Do you drink the water that you flush? Must be something different about it then. The water you drink is potable water and the water you flush is waste water, reference the plumbing code.

As for bonding see the reference following Ice’s quote.



			
				ICE said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I did read it and didn't find any explanation of your invented sewer pipe grounding electrode.  Nope and no code to go with it.  So let's try this....why don't you put up or shut up.Hijacking threads with your crusade against rationality is tiresome.


 With all the pictures and comments about how bad the electricians are in that concrete jungle that you live in I would think that your expertise would already know the verbiage of Article 250. Read closely 250.52 and pay close attention to 250.52(A)(8)(8) Other Local Metal Underground Systems or Structures. *Other local metal underground systems or structures **such as piping systems*, underground tanks, and underground metal well casings that are not bonded to a metal water pipe.


----------

