Balcony Railing - 250.4(A)(4) Inspector asking for bonding

[jjs]

There are no receptacles on this balcony. I do not believe it is LIKELY TO BECOME ENERGIZED.
The inspector said lightning was not what he was referring to. What was mentioned was Christmas lights and TVs, connected to a receptacle located inside the house.

"250.4(A)(4) Bonding of electrically conductive materials and other equipment. Normally non-current-carrying electrically conductive materials that are likely to become energized shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a manner that establishes an effective ground-fault current path."

I have never had this request before in all the condo/apartment type buildings I have ever designed.

Does metal furniture inside the apartment have to be bonded then as well? How would you control that?

Where does it end?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think to require the railing to be bonded is a huge stretch of the code rule. Even if electrical equipment is used on the railing, it is really unlikely, that the railing will become energized.

From the question, this appears to be a dwelling unit, and the 2011 code requires a receptacle outlet if the balcony can be accessed from inside the unit.

 

[Fishspark]

Let the Inspector know that you have no intention to do that and also in the event if you are forced to (too allow people to move in etc.) you will hold them responsible for the cost of doing such and any collection fees accordingly.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I think to require the railing to be bonded is a huge stretch of the code rule. Even of electrcal equipment is used on the railing, it is really likely, that the railing will become energized.

From the question, this appears to be a dwelling unit, and the 2011 code requires a receptacle outlet if the balcony can be accessed from inside the unit.

Did they change the sq footage requirement Don?

Oh yeah, and I would argue bonding the railing.

 

[raider1]

Did they change the sq footage requirement Don?

Oh yeah, and I would argue bonding the railing.

Yes, the 2011 NEC removed the 20 square foot exception for balconies effectively requiring a receptacle at all balconies.

The 2014 NEC does not include the 20 foot exception either.

Here is what the 2014 NEC says in regards to balconies.

(3) Balconies, Decks, and Porches. Balconies, decks, and
porches that are attached to the dwelling unit and are accessible
from inside the dwelling unit shall have at least
one receptacle outlet accessible from the balcony, deck, or
porch. The receptacle outlet shall not be located more than
2.0 m (61⁄2 ft) above the balcony, deck, or porch walking
surface.

Chris

 

[Gregg Harris]

Did they change the sq footage requirement Don?

Oh yeah, and I would argue bonding the railing.

Square footage exception in 2008 removed

Exception to (3): Balconies, decks, or porches with a usable area of less than 1.86 m2 (20 ft2) are not required to have a receptacle installed

 

[Gregg Harris]

chris types faster

 

[cowboyjwc]

Thanks guys. We won't be on the 2011 until January and I really haven't spent much time looking at it either, to tell you the truth.

 

[infinity]

As stated it would be a huge stretch of the imagination to say that the railing is likely to become energized. In fact to echo what Don said almost nothing is ever likely to become energized.

 

[ceb58]

Let the Inspector know that you have no intention to do that and also in the event if you are forced to (too allow people to move in etc.) you will hold them responsible for the cost of doing such and any collection fees accordingly.

What a great way to make a professional working relationship with the inspector.

 

[jusme123]

...does he also require stainless steel kitchen sinks to be effectively grounded? What about reachable rain gutters? Door knobs?
Sliding glass door frames? Ridiculous!

 

[jjs]

I think to require the railing to be bonded is a huge stretch of the code rule. Even of electrcal equipment is used on the railing, it is really likely, that the railing will become energized.

Don, did you mean to say "it is really UNLIKELY" ?

This is a multifamily apartment building with 300 some balconies. This also did not get caught in permit review. Drywall is already up in half the apartments. So it will be a real cost adder also.
2005 NEC did not require the balcony receptacle for multifamily.

 

[kwired]

Don, did you mean to say "it is really UNLIKELY" ?

This is a multifamily apartment building with 300 some balconies. This also did not get caught in permit review. Drywall is already up in half the apartments. So it will be a real cost adder also.
2005 NEC did not require the balcony receptacle for multifamily.

Is 2005 the applicable code here? 2005 NEC would not have required bonding the railing either. Tell your inspector to cite a code section that applies or leave it be.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Don, did you mean to say "it is really UNLIKELY" ?

...

Yes I did...I will fix the original post.

 

[jjs]

Now the inspector is citing 250.104(C). It is a wood frame building with steel balconies with steel railiings.

Any thoughts on whether this is structural steel?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Is 2005 the applicable code here? 2005 NEC would not have required bonding the railing either. Tell your inspector to cite a code section that applies or leave it be.

If we go back a number of code cycles to the early 90s, you may have an arguement that the railing needs bonding. At that time the wording said bonding was required if the object "may become energized". Now it says "likely to become energized". It is possible (may) for the railing to become energized, but it is not likely.
Note that CMP 5 says that "may become energized" means exactly the same thing as "likely to become energized", but I do not agree with that.

 

[kwired]

Now the inspector is citing 250.104(C). It is a wood frame building with steel balconies with steel railiings.

Any thoughts on whether this is structural steel?

250.104(C) starts out with : "Exposed structural metal that is interconnected to form a metal building frame and is not intentionally grounded or bonded and is likely to become energized shall be bonded to..."

I don't see how you described is interconnected to form a metal building frame, or that it is likely to become energized.

As has been said, if this needs bonding, then so should metal rain gutters, metal casings on doors/windows, or even metal siding/roofing on wood framed structures.

Think of this, if it does become energized what is the hazard? You are isolated from grounded surfaces and would never know it is energized.

 

[mjf]

Seems like a huge stretch for the insp to even consider this a violation. Have you royally pissed him/her off in the past???

 

[Fishspark]

What a great way to make a professional working relationship with the inspector.

Understood,
sometimes one needs to push back though, with just enough force that is equal to the request

 

[jjs]

My mistake. It is the 2002 code. 250.104(C) uses the words "MAY BECOME ENERGIZED"

2005 250.104(C) uses the words "Likely to BECOME ENERGIZED"

2002 250.4(A)(4) uses the words "Likely to become energized"

The inspector believes it will make the project inherently safer, I don't think he is mad at anybody. I know I am not mad at him. But, as a representative for the owner I have to defend their position.