bonding of other piping systems, gas, etc.

[Mr. Spinosa]

I have a question about bonding a metal gas piping system to a metal water piping system. I am using the 2014 NEC, section 250.104(B). - I have been under the assumption that gas piping in a home could be bonded to any point to a metal water piping system. However, after looking further at 250.104(B) I am really questioning my thinking on this. - I understand the gas piping system needs to be bonded to one of the items listed as (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) of 250.104(B). I did look at the reading in the handbook that says the use of an additional bonding jumper is not always required for gas piping.... I also looked at 250.52(A)(1)... Honestly, I am having a hard time framing my question without writing an entire book. To the point: Is it acceptable to bond a metal gas pipe at any point to a metal water piping system, or does the gas piping system have to be bonded to a point within the first five feet of the point of entrance of the water system. - If I remember correctly, some time ago, I performed an electrical panel change and I bonded the gas piping system to a point on the water piping system that was more than five feet away from where the water piping system entered the structure. Thanks in advance for your answers!

On another note: I no longer see the stipulation, or "with five feet" rule in 250.52(A)(1) (2008 NEC) (Our jurisdiction never adopted the 2011 NEC) If we use an underground water pipe as an electrode do we still have to make our connections withing the first five feet?...

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Assuming the gas pipe is not the CSST-the flexible , usually yellow or black gas line- then you generally don't need to bond the gas line if there is equipment such as a gas furnace. Look at 250.104(B) - this allows the egc to be used as the bond. If there is no electrically fed gas equipment then the bond may be done anywhere on the gas line but not on the line side of the gas meter

 

[electrofelon]

But if there is no electrically fed gas fired appliance, is the piping system still "likely to become energized"?

 

[GoldDigger]

But if there is no electrically fed gas fired appliance, is the piping system still "likely to become energized"?

Not unless it runs near a pool. That seems likely to energize anything.


Tapatalk!

 

[Smart $]

Assuming the gas pipe is not the CSST-the flexible , usually yellow or black gas line- then you generally don't need to bond the gas line if there is equipment such as a gas furnace. Look at 250.104(B) - this allows the egc to be used as the bond. If there is no electrically fed gas equipment then the bond may be done anywhere on the gas line but not on the line side of the gas meter

But if there is no electrically fed gas fired appliance, is the piping system still "likely to become energized"?

Sized per 250.122, one would have to determine which circuit is likely to energize the gas piping in order to size the jumper, right?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Sized per 250.122, one would have to determine which circuit is likely to energize the gas piping in order to size the jumper, right?

IMO the circuit that feeds an appliance that is gas is the circuit that is likely to energize... Many inspectors think that if a piece of nm or se cable touches the gas piping then that is what we need to protect against. That is not the case.

If the furnace is gas and is fed with 14/2 then 14 awg is all that is needed to bond the gas and that is done by the equipment grounding conductor which falls back to 250.122 as stated

 

[electrofelon]

IMO the circuit that feeds an appliance that is gas is the circuit that is likely to energize... Many inspectors think that if a piece of nm or se cable touches the gas piping then that is what we need to protect against. That is not the case.

If the furnace is gas and is fed with 14/2 then 14 awg is all that is needed to bond the gas and that is done by the equipment grounding conductor which falls back to 250.122 as stated

Is there ever a case when we need to bond a gas pipe then (other then with the egc to the appliance which we do anyway)? I believe CSST manufacturers instructions state to bond it with a larger than egc jumper, but i am mot convinced that is the electricians responsibility as the gas line is a different trade.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Is there ever a case when we need to bond a gas pipe then (other then with the egc to the appliance which we do anyway)? I believe CSST manufacturers instructions state to bond it with a larger than egc jumper, but i am mot convinced that is the electricians responsibility as the gas line is a different trade.

I agree CSST requires a larger bond however I believe if there are gas appliances that do not have a branch circuit run to them then you would need to use 250.66. Seems odd to me as there is less likelihood of the pipe being energized in that case. Also why is the gas line allowed to use the equipment grounding conductor and the water pipe are not? I assume because the water pipes enter the bath areas. Seems to be a bit inconsistent.

 

[Smart $]

IMO the circuit that feeds an appliance that is gas is the circuit that is likely to energize... Many inspectors think that if a piece of nm or se cable touches the gas piping then that is what we need to protect against. That is not the case.

If the furnace is gas and is fed with 14/2 then 14 awg is all that is needed to bond the gas and that is done by the equipment grounding conductor which falls back to 250.122 as stated

I was only referring to where there is no connected gas/electric appliance.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

Interesting enough I was at the 2014 NFPA Conference and during the hearings the guys from "counter-strike" or "Omega-Flex" I think was attempting to get their thicker carbon based covering for CSST removed from its specific bonding requirement in accordance with manufacturers statements, NFPA 54, and other I-Code standards. You might be interested to know that the motion failed....my response was you can call it anything you want, put any jacket on it you wish but at the end of the day its still CSST...and that is defined.

They tried to say it was different than CSST; but in NFPA 54 and I-Codes it is still very much defined as CSST. So again the attempt was defeated.

Just some FYI....for what its worth

 

[GoldDigger]

Interesting enough I was at the 2014 NFPA Conference and during the hearings the guys from "counter-strike" or "Omega-Flex" I think was attempting to get their thicker carbon based covering for CSST removed from its specific bonding requirement in accordance with manufacturers statements, NFPA 54, and other I-Code standards. You might be interested to know that the motion failed....my response was you can call it anything you want, put any jacket on it you wish but at the end of the day its still CSST...and that is defined.

They tried to say it was different than CSST; but in NFPA 54 and I-Codes it is still very much defined as CSST. So again the attempt was defeated.

Just some FYI....for what its worth

I take it you would be more comfortable with relaxing the bonding requirement if the product actually had a UL recognized distinction such as CSST-E for enhanced coating that would be tested for lightning induced current handling and could then be called out specifically in the NEC?
I agree that "because we say so....." has historically proven to be a weak justification.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

I take it you would be more comfortable with relaxing the bonding requirement if the product actually had a UL recognized distinction such as CSST-E for enhanced coating that would be tested for lightning induced current handling and could then be called out specifically in the NEC?
I agree that "because we say so....." has historically proven to be a weak justification.

Actually I am not comfortable with the product in any configuration to be honest with you and I prefer the NEC remain silent on the issue expect where applicable to 250.104(B) conditions. As expressed at the NFPA Conference, the committee giving it consideration also felt it lacked substantial documentation and well...as a result it failed nationally as it has been locally for the past few years.

They are almost as persistent as the home builders association...but just almost.