Even more so concrete and definitive....Such as "whose probability of becoming energized during any one year period is greater than .10"?
And requiring a PE for every such calculation?
Even more so concrete and definitive....Such as "whose probability of becoming energized during any one year period is greater than .10"?
And requiring a PE for every such calculation?
There is a counter argument to that.Again , my feeling is that the gas pipe is more likely to be energized if there isn't a branch circuit feeding the gas equipment. Heck at least there is an equipment grounding conductor when the unit has power
There is a counter argument to that.
It does not say how long it has to stay energized, nor at what voltage. So even with the EGC present the pipe could become energized, briefly.
I don't think it is likely to happen over a 40 year life either.FWIW, "likely to happen today" is vastly different from "likely to happen once during the 40 year expected life of the equipment." We design for the later case.
I don't think a gas pipe or a water pipe or the structural steel are "likely to become energized". Sure it is possible, but it is very unlikely.Again , my feeling is that the gas pipe is more likely to be energized if there isn't a branch circuit feeding the gas equipment. Heck at least there is an equipment grounding conductor when the unit has power
I don't think a gas pipe or a water pipe or the structural steel are "likely to become energized". Sure it is possible, but it is very unlikely.
My point is that since it is unlikely that these things will become energized, you don't have to bond them.I don't either but I am thinking it is more likely to be energized if there is no equipment grounding conductor then if there is an equipment grounding conductor. I don't think the odds in either case are very high, rather barely existing.
My point is that since it is unlikely that these things will become energized, you don't have to bond them.
As long as it does not involve me becoming likely to become energized I'll take it.I'll send you some help Dave.
Reading between the lines as Smart stated it looks like they are saying that likely to be energized happens when a branch circuit feeds a gas appliance.
In previous codes it was left more wide open, imo, to include other scenarios such as nm laying on top of pipe etc. By the statement in the 2014 I see it as basically defining that likely to be energized is only on circuits that feed gas pipes.That was already the case in previous code cycles.
In previous codes it was left more wide open, imo, to include other scenarios such as nm laying on top of pipe etc. By the statement in the 2014 I see it as basically defining that likely to be energized is only on circuits that feed gas pipes.
The equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that is likely
to energize the piping shall be permitted to serve as the
bonding means.
That can mean the circuit that energizes the gas equip. can use the equipment grounding conductor, it doesn't, IMO, say it as well as the 2014 that if no equipment is wired then no need to bond the gas. Yes I am reading between the lines just as we do in the 2011 but it seems a bit clearerFrom 2011
Do you think they mean you can break into a random NM laying on top of the pipe and use that EGC to bond that pipe?
I always took that sentence to mean via the equipment a circuit feeds.
(B) Other Metal Piping. If installed in, or attached to, a building or structure, a metal piping system(s), including gas piping, that is likely to become energized shall be bonded to any of the following:
(1) Equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that is likely to energize the piping system
From 2011
Do you think they mean you can break into a random NM laying on top of the pipe and use that EGC to bond that pipe?
I always took that sentence to mean via the equipment a circuit feeds.
I agree with you but I don't think iot says what we think it says--charlie's rule...