Electrical grounded to gas line

[mommy2two]

Hello,
I'm not an electrician but I was looking for some kind of answer among people who know what they're talking about. I just recently had my electrical redone by a "professional" electrician. My husband works for a local cable company and just knows basic techniques for grounding cable systems to the house ground. He walked into the furnace room and noticed the ground braid had been clamped to the gas line that runs directly into the furnace. There was also braid that was ran and clamped to both hot and cold water. The electrician who did the work claims that it is right under the NEC but I just want to know what the real deal is. Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Sincerely,
Concerned homeowner

 

[ivsenroute]

Sounds routine to me. Get it inspected by the local electrical inspector as it should have been.

 

[e57]

We don't normally answer HO questions - but the real deal is the gas is BONDED not being used as a GROUND.

 

[infinity]

The jumper to the gas line is permitted but not required by the NEC. This could be a local code issue however.

 

[kacper]

The jumper to the gas line is permitted but not required by the NEC. This could be a local code issue however.

When the gas line is connected to equipment with electrical components ( furnace, generator, gas stove w/electrical spark....)and most likely there is a chance that line become energized you have to bond the the gas pipe w/ equipment ground according to table 250.122
Lokk section 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 shall be
bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded
conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor
where of sufficient size, or the one or more grounding electrodes
used. The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance
with 250.122, using the rating of the circuit that is
likely to energize the piping system(s). The equipment
grounding conductor for the circuit that is likely to energize
the piping shall be permitted to serve as the bonding means.
The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be
accessible.

 

[George Stolz]

When the gas line is connected to equipment with electrical components ( furnace, generator, gas stove w/electrical spark....)and most likely there is a chance that line become energized you have to bond the the gas pipe

...

The equipment
grounding conductor for the circuit that is likely to energize
the piping shall be permitted to serve as the bonding means.
The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be
accessible.

So as long as the furnace is bonded with the EGC, then no further action is required. A separate EGC is not required, but is permitted, as Infinity pointed out.

 

[kacper]

So as long as the furnace is bonded with the EGC, then no further action is required. A separate EGC is not required, but is permitted, as Infinity pointed out.

That 's correct. Nobody is speaking about separate EGC. All we need is the bonding

 

[e57]

The jumper to the gas line is permitted but not required by the NEC. This could be a local code issue however.

There can be some debate about the route and sized of said bond - but it is metalic piping it needs to get bonded. You could use the EGC of the equipment unit, but that and all gas appliances would need to be fed from the main panel... That is required by the NEC, and has been clarified in more recent revisions of the code. And yes many local codes would govern where and how... For instance, I am required locally to take a bond from the main panel or electrode system to the 2nd fitting on the customer side of the gas meter. For the sake of easy of installation we use #4 so as not to require additional protection for the conductor, but could use #6. (Local interpetation of subject to damage...) This used to be traditionally done at the water heaters - hot cold gas... But other local interpetations of that danged 5' rule of the water added in the 99 code for water electrodes screwed that. Now they want each piping system bonded at it's origin in the building, they don't want jacks of all trades adding circuits to sub-panels for gas appliances or in some cases like condos taking the circuit from the main is not possible so why not hit all the pipe in one shot with a size suitable for a supplimental electrode which is also suitable for a 200a feeder even if it is not likely to enegize the gas pipe they are covered - that is the thinking.... Which makes it 'LOOK' like an electrode, in the way a water line 'could' be both a bond, and electrode. Gas utilities have not been fond of the gas being bonded like this, the gas company here fought and lost this battle - but I think it still rages on in other places?

 

[e57]

So as long as the furnace is bonded with the EGC, then no further action is required. A separate EGC is not required, but is permitted, as Infinity pointed out.

Depending on which code cycle you're on - it is more clear in more recent codes - if you bond with the egc - it needs to come from the main, or electrode system... (Just a distinction that needs to made about that use you mention...)

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Some utility company might not want it bonded.

 

[e57]

Some utility company might not want it bonded.

As mentioned there has been some debate, and legal wrangling on the topic - but the NEC is the code in many areas - and it is required...

Some info:
http://www.aga.org/NR/rdonlyres/EAB...TSHEETNFGCGasPipingBondingSeptember242009.pdf

 

[infinity]

So as long as the furnace is bonded with the EGC, then no further action is required. A separate EGC is not required, but is permitted, as Infinity pointed out.

Yup that's what I meant, thanks George.

A separate jumper is not required since the EGC feeding the gas appliance will bond the gas pipe. You can install one if you want.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

Some utility company might not want it bonded.

The USBC says if there's CSST, it HAS TO be bonded. I'm not sure who WOULD NOT want it bonded, As you say.

 

[hurk27]

You could use the EGC of the equipment unit, but that and all gas appliances would need to be fed from the main panel... That is required by the NEC, and has been clarified in more recent revisions of the code.

Ok so if the circuit of the appliance that is also considered as the bonding means via the EGC, it has to be fed from the main panel????
where is this in the NEC?

Grounding electrodes are the only conductors needed to be run from the same point of the MBJ, a gas pipe bond or a 250.104 water pipe bond are allowed even from a sub-panel?

This is all new to me?

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

The USBC says if there's CSST, it HAS TO be bonded. I'm not sure who WOULD NOT want it bonded, As you say.

Gas company get concerned that they could end up being your neutral in case of open neutral. Removing a meter just might cause an arc. Personally i will follow nec and bond it.

 

[e57]

Ok so if the circuit of the appliance that is also considered as the bonding means via the EGC, it has to be fed from the main panel????
where is this in the NEC?

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 shall be
bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded
conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor
where of sufficient size, or the one or more grounding electrodes
used. The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance
with 250.122, using the rating of the circuit that is
likely to energize the piping system(s). The equipment
grounding conductor for the circuit that is likely to energize
the piping shall be permitted to serve as the bonding means.
The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be
accessible.

Gas piping...(*)SHALL BE BONDED TO THE PLACES MENTIONED in the first part of the paragraph.

If the bonding means is the EGC for the circuit - as it "SHALL BE PERMITTED" - it still has to go to the same place....

(*)The only part open to intepetation is "likely to become energized" and that is interpeted widely. Likely could mean if in the event of equipment failure - it serves a dual fuel oven/range (50A oven with gas cooktop) requiring at least #10CU... To some 'likely' could mean it may be crossed by a feeder of 200A... To some - why short sell when you can be covered in all possible situations... (Which is the way it is interpeted around my neck of the woods... :roll

Grounding electrodes are the only conductors needed to be run from the same point of the MBJ, a gas pipe bond or a 250.104 water pipe bond are allowed even from a sub-panel?

This is all new to me?

The gas bond as mentioned in 250.104(B)is required to be taken to the places lists - grounded conductor at the service, the electrode system... The water bond is very simular - even if it is not being used as an electrode 250.104(A) requires the jumper be installed according to 250.64 a b & e - then - lays out 3 situations - in a single stucture 250.104(A)1 would be applicable. Saying it needs to go to the same places an electrode would... Even if it not an electrode it looks and and is installed very much like one...

 

[hurk27]

Gas piping...(*)SHALL BE BONDED TO THE PLACES MENTIONED in the first part of the paragraph.

If the bonding means is the EGC for the circuit - as it "SHALL BE PERMITTED" - it still has to go to the same place....

Ok so if that is true, then because of 250.130(A) we are not allowed to run anything from a sub-panel?

250.130(A) For Grounded Systems. The connection shall be made by bonding the equipment grounding conductor to the grounded service conductor and the grounding electrode conductor.

do you still think that was the intent?

 

[hurk27]

whoops..............

 

[eprice]

If the bonding means is the EGC for the circuit - as it "SHALL BE PERMITTED" - it still has to go to the same place....

That is true, but it does not say that the EGC cannot be spliced. Just because an EGC goes to a sub panel grounding bar first, it still leads back to the service enclosure. I don't see how the "splice" at the sub panel impairs its ability to perform the intended function of clearing a fault. We do after all trust it to clear a fault in the furnace or other appliance.

 

[e57]

Gas piping...(*)SHALL BE BONDED TO THE PLACES MENTIONED in the first part of the paragraph.

If the bonding means is the EGC for the circuit - as it "SHALL BE PERMITTED" - it still has to go to the same place....

(*)The only part open to intepetation is "likely to become energized" and that is interpeted widely.


The gas bond as mentioned in 250.104(B)is required to be taken to the places lists - grounded conductor at the service, the electrode system... ~

Ok so if that is true, then because of 250.130(A) we are not allowed to run anything from a sub-panel?



do you still think that was the intent?

Truthfully - I'm unsure of the "intent" but the way it is written (which I do not think is written very well.) it says the piping bond needs to go 'there' or 'there'... The circuit could originate from "anywhere" - but if the circuit originates from other than the main panel you would not be able to use the EGC for the circuit as the "bond". You would need an additional "BOND" for the gas line(s)...

That is true, but it does not say that the EGC cannot be spliced. Just because an EGC goes to a sub panel grounding bar first, it still leads back to the service enclosure. I don't see how the "splice" at the sub panel impairs its ability to perform the intended function of clearing a fault. We do after all trust it to clear a fault in the furnace or other appliance.

Remember we are talking about the 'bond for the pipe' - the bond for the pipe needs to go to the electrode system or main panel... The "EGC" doesn't have to come from the main - but if it serves as the "bond for the pipe" it would need to come from the main - otherwise it would have said to take it to 'any EGC'... Like I said - I think it is a poorly worded section of code, and is interpeted in a number of ways due to its poor wording.