radiopet said:
OK.....I have spoken to Mike Holt today and he has asked me to post this response.
1.) He is of the believe ( As I am also ) that .....
The problem with individual beliefs is that you end up with individual decisions. . Of course the code is
filled with stuff that needs to be interpreted but the times when a definite answer is available, those are the times when you can provide
uniform code enforcement across the board for all contractors on all projects. . That's the
ideal situation.
Putting in code proposals for changes is the best longterm approach. . But in the short term
uniform enforcement is most desirable.
I'm not going to express my opinion on this question because I've followed my method and came up with a definite answer. . I don't feel that my opinion on door/window bonding matters on this question. . When I follow my steps for 680.26(B)(7), the word "parts" isn't clear and that sends me to step #2.
But, as I said before, I don't want to put too much emphasis on the Handbook or ROPs. . I don't feel that ROP/ROC words matter when looking at 680.26(C). . Even if it was the Handbook that said "metal" under 680.26(C), I would
ignore the Handbook because 680.26(C) is totally
clear as written. . I fully understand what the word "conductive" means and I'm moving on to step #4.
M. D. said:
And I still don't see the language that makes,. the bonding of the fence or antenna or any other fixed metal that is not part of a wiring method or equipment as defined by the book itself,...clear,.. 5' or otherwise .
"And I still don't see the language that makes,. the bonding .....clear,.."
The fact that it's not
clear is my whole point. . I'm not offering an opinion on what I think should be bonded, I trusting the
process that I'm following that will
cut back on the weight that my opinion has in the inspection process. . Determining if something is clear is the most important point that I consider at each step.
I'm still applying common sense [in step #4] and I'm still drawing conclusions about words like "parts" and "conductive". . And I'm still considering the context, but my starting point is not what I think should be accepted in the next code cycle.
#1] What does the wording in the NEC actually say ? . Is it clear ? . If yes, then skip to #4.
#2] Is there other language within the NEC that might not directly apply but can help understand a word or phrase ? . If yes, then skip to #4.
#3] Is there info in an ROP, NEC Handbook, or UL Whitebook that helps clear up the question ?
#4] Take the best answer you have at this point and apply common sense to the specific installation that you're looking at.
#5] Is it still unclear which of several options are required ? . Then accept any of those possible options that the contractor chooses.