Bonding the copper plumbing in a dwelling.?

[al hildenbrand]

A cold water system and a hot water system are separate parts of the complete metallic piping system.

Mike,

I invoke Charlie's Rule and ask that you dispassionately study your own words.

In a dwelling, the hot water cannot exist alone. It is not separate. It has to have water service to the dwelling and the water service has to be extended to the hot water heater. If the hot water piping, heater, and fixtures existed alone they would not be a WATER piping system as they would be empty of all but air.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Where are you comming up with these definitions?

Try the ICC.

 

[jxofaltrds]

See you are now backing my statement that there is only one potable water system and not a cold potable water system and a hot potable water system. What part of this posted statement states that there are two different systems found to supply these fixtures?

[Note the "connected to the water distribution system".]

Maybe they meant to say connect to the hot water distribution and also to the cold water distribution system that must be bonded together, but just did finish their statement.

I have a NM wire. It has three seperate wires yet it is complete.

"Maybe they meant to say connect to the hot water distribution and also to the cold water distribution system that must be bonded together, but just did finish their statement."

Maybe? I am just trying to look at the written words.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Mike,

I invoke Charlie's Rule and ask that you dispassionately study your own words.

In a dwelling, the hot water cannot exist alone. It is not separate. It has to have water service to the dwelling and the water service has to be extended to the hot water heater. If the hot water piping, heater, and fixtures existed alone they would not be a WATER piping system as they would be empty of all but air.

It may be full of air, and both of us may also, but that does not change the fact that it is still metal water piping. It was installed for hot water.

We as electricians do not care what people do with their homes. We only follow the NEC.

So if I installed (wired a home) the electric for an Amish family, only for the reason of resale, and they had no electric connected to the home, do I still have to follow the NEC?

 

[electricmanscott]

Try the ICC.

Ok or you could just tell me where. :roll:

 

[jwelectric]

Maybe? I am just trying to look at the written words.

No my friend you are not looking at the written words. You are trying to take what is written and make it sound like what you want it to say.
Not only are you taking parts of different sentences to make a complete sentence but you are taking parts of sentences from two different codes to make one sentence to show your point.

The ICC plumbing code does not define a hot and cold water system as being different. It defines the following:
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM. The water service pipe, water distribution pipes, and the necessary connecting pipes, fittings, control valves and all appurtenances in or adjacent to the structure or premises.

The NEC does not define a hot and cold water system either. In 250.104 it clearly makes the statement that a metal water pipe is to be bonded and does not make the statement that the hot and cold potable water are two separate systems. This train of thought that the two are separate and apart from each other comes from adding parts of sentences from the plumbing code together to form one sentence.

I have a NM wire. It has three seperate wires yet it is complete.

And as any electrician would tell you it would be part of the same circuit not two different circuits that would require special attention.

Throughout this thread you have been desperately grasping at straws to find some way to support something that you are trying to enforce that is not required any where in any code.
Several different times someone has posted the written word of the CMP that clearly makes the statement that if it is not 100% metal then it would fall under the guidance of 250.104(B) but you pull out something from the plumbing code, take out of text, and then use it to prove your point.

The bottom line is there is not one word in any of the other three trade codes that can be used to turn down an electrical installation.

 

[George Stolz]

I have a snow day today (please don't run with that) so I wouldn't mind pitching two cents in on this discussion.

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing in my brief scan of the thread what the ruckus is all about.

Would someone mind summarizing the two opposing viewpoints of the issue at hand?

I did notice this:

I posted what George proposed as information,. and to say thanks ,.. this section needs work,.. he recognized this and tried to make a positive change, it is more than I did and I appreciate his effort.

There was a previous argument, I imagine with Mike Whitt ( ), and as per usual, my proposal was rejected - and as per usual, the panel's statement was less than informational in rejecting it.

Usually, when I argue with Mike Whitt over an issue, we both submit opposing proposals on the issue, and he usually wins.

 

[M. D.]

I think Mike parks is saying that because a heating appliance is installed on a metal water piping system another system is born and requires bonding per 250.104(A)
I think he is still rejecting mixing valves such as those found in post #148 as part of the piping system and therfore they would not provide this bond , there was talk of them not being listed for such use ..

So I guess he is saying that regardless the fact that it is an all metal system the output of a heating appliance connection creates a seperate metal piping system

Though ,.at this point, I'm really not sure myself

George do you wonder what the CMP response would have been had you not included the 25' measurement ?

 

[George Stolz]

George do you wonder what the CMP response would have been had you not included the 25' measurement ?

No - such thoughts simply lead to drinking. I'm going to get a tattoo that says, "The existing language has been used successfully for years."

I think Mike parks is saying that because a heating appliance is installed on a metal water piping system another system is born and requires bonding per 250.104(A)

I'm pretty sure I could dig up a CMP response to counter that argument.

 

[M. D.]

No - such thoughts simply lead to drinking. I'm going to get a tattoo that says, "The existing language has been used successfully for years."


I'm pretty sure I could dig up a CMP response to counter that argument.

Well ,. sounds like you'll have the shovel out,. so , by all means start digging.

But if it is one of these ,don't bother

5-235 Log #1834 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.104(A)(1))

__________________________________________________ __________

Submitter: Mark T. Rochon, Mark J. Rochon Master Electrician

Recommendation: Revise as follows:
General Combination metal water piping system(s) separated by nonmetallic
water piping system(s) where may become energized installed in or attached to
a building or structure 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.

Substantiation: Nonmetallic water piping systems are being inserted between
our metal water piping system and today?s code is not recognizing these
changes.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The conditions indicated in the substantiation are already
covered by 250.104(B) where there is not a complete metallic water piping
system.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15
__________________________________________________ __________
5-236 Log #2432 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.104(A)(1))

__________________________________________________ __________

Submitter: Robert P. McGann, City of Cambridge

Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
Metal water piping system(s) that is likely to be energized , installed in or
attached to a building or structure shall be bonded.

Substantiation: With much expanded use of plastic water piping system(s)
isolating section of metal piping systems. This type of installation leaves
contractors and inspectors what is required to be bonded.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The requirements of 250.104(A) apply to complete metallic
water piping systems. Where there is no complete metallic water piping
system, then the requirements of 250.104(B) would apply for those portions of
isolated metal water piping system likely to become energized.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15
__________________________________

 

[George Stolz]

Well ,. sounds like you'll have the shovel out,. so , by all means start digging.

But if it is one of these ,don't bother

If those have been provided, then what is the question?

Clearly, the CMP has no concern for bonding the hot water pipes unless they are deemed to be likely to be energized.

 

[iwire]

I have a snow day today

It's overcast and cool here.
















Now I will run and hide.:grin:

 

[M. D.]

Maybe Mike P. will be able to enlighten you.

 

[iwire]

Clearly, the CMP has no concern for bonding the hot water pipes unless they are deemed to be likely to be energized.

Clearly to all but one.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Maybe Mike P. will be able to enlighten you.

For George

Short answer.
I believe that the hot and cold are seperate system(s).

"Clearly, the CMP has no concern for bonding the hot water pipes unless they are deemed to be likely to be energized."

No it is NOT clear.

Where is "likely to be energized" discussed for metal water piping? That is for other metal (does not say water) piping. Metal water piping is discussed first. Then we go to other metal piping.

For a second forget that other metal piping is in the code.

Just look at metal water piping system(s).
Again why is there a (s) in that section. Please give me some examples of what you think the system(s) are that the code refers to.

Cold water
Hot water
Sprinkler
Boiler

So are you saying if these system(s) are isolated in 'any' way they need not be bonded?

 

[George Stolz]

No it is NOT clear.

Actually, the CMP comments on the issue are quite clear; slow down and read them closely:

5-235 Log #1834 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.104(A)(1))
(snip)

Panel Statement: The conditions indicated in the substantiation are already
covered by 250.104(B) where there is not a complete metallic water piping
system.

5-236 Log #2432 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.104(A)(1))

Panel Statement: The requirements of 250.104(A) apply to complete metallic water piping systems. Where there is no complete metallic water piping system, then the requirements of 250.104(B) would apply for those portions of isolated metal water piping system likely to become energized.

Where is "likely to be energized" discussed for metal water piping? That is for other metal (does not say water) piping. Metal water piping is discussed first. Then we go to other metal piping.

I understand what you're saying - the language is lacking. But there is not sufficient language to require the hot water piping to be bonded, either. There are mixing valves at every sink and tub that electrically connect the two pipes back together. What is your extraneous bonding doing for you that the mixing valves are not?

For a second forget that other metal piping is in the code.

The CMP brought that into the equation, we didn't.

Just look at metal water piping system(s).
Again why is there a (s) in that section. Please give me some examples of what you think the system(s) are that the code refers to.

Cold water
Hot water
Sprinkler
Boiler

So are you saying if these system(s) are isolated in 'any' way they need not be bonded?

You need to understand that this section does need work - it doesn't say what it should any more than it says what you'd like it to say. It's vague and unenforceable, which the CMP is beholden to avoid but loathe to admit.

It can also be read that in a multifamily dwelling, these cold water system(s) feeding each unit, say from a seperate water service apiece, would need to be bonded.

You have been shown what they intend - now it's up to you to decide whether that minimum standard is lacking, and requires a more rigorous read on the words than the CMP has, or if you've planted your flag on the wrong side of the argument.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Mike,

Below, in my response to you, as I type "COMPLETE" in all caps, please understand that I am using the National Electrical Code Making Panel's (CMP) use of the word in the two CMP "Panel Statement" that M. D. has posted and reposted in this thread.

Please give me some examples of what you think the system(s) are that the code refers to.

Sure.

In the four county Twin Cities area that I work in, through the '50s - '70s, a popular design for "better" homes had irrigation systems run off private wells. That is, submersible well was installed in the basement, along with control and expansion tank, in that portion of a basement that bumped out beyond the footprint of the floor above. This bumpout was commonly a door stoop that was poured concrete with a glass block centered vertically over the well casing head. The glass block would be removed for servicing the submersible. The water piping from the expansion tank then went to the sill cocks and to the manifold that then went out into the yard. In those decades ('50s - '70s) this was a COMPLETE metal water pipe system. There were no plastics used. This COMPLETE metal water pipe system had no interconnection with the potable water system of the dwelling.

In fact, the potable water supply was provided to all these "inner ring suburb" dwellings by a common municipal water system.

There are thousands of these double COMPLETE metal water pipe systems installed in the Twin Cities. I just saw a working one a few weeks ago in Golden Valley, . . . although many have been lost to neglect.

So are you saying if these system(s) are isolated in 'any' way they need not be bonded?

Mike,

This question of yours is the heart of the matter.

What we've been showing you is that if a COMPLETE metal water pipe system has a portion of itself electrically isolated by alteration, or by design, with the insertion of some assembly that is nonconductive, then the isolated conductive portion of the pipe system falls under 250.104(B). If there is no likelyhood of energization, then the isolated conductive portion of the pipe system does not need to be bonded.

 

[JFletcher]

"Would someone mind summarizing the two opposing viewpoints of the issue at hand?"

As briefly as possible:

Mike P. is stating that the hot and cold water are two different piping systems, and that a bonding jumper must be installed between the two (preferably at the hot water tank). He does not accept the mixing valve at the tub as a valid electrical connection between the two systems.

The opposing viewpoints do not see the need by code for the bonding jumper, as the NEC does not distinguish between hot and cold water. They see it as one system, and do accept the mixing valve as a valid connection.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Something that hasn't been brought up that I wanted to ask Mr. Parks: if (as is your contention) a hot water system is a separate entity from cold water, then by definition the hot water system would include the hot water heater water feed line, yes? You've already stated that you accept all manner of plumbing fittings (except for mixing valves) to 'count' as part of the system - what about the "T" fitting that splits the water feed before the hot water tank? I would contend that even if they are two separate systems and the tub mixing valve wasn't acceptible, that "T" fitting joins the hot and cold water systems, and the only requirement to bond past the water heater would be if the piping was likely to become energized, local code adaptation, or in a hot water heater's installation instructions.

 

[jxofaltrds]

"Would someone mind summarizing the two opposing viewpoints of the issue at hand?"

As briefly as possible:

Mike P. is stating that the hot and cold water are two different piping systems, and that a bonding jumper must be installed between the two (preferably at the hot water tank). He does not accept the mixing valve at the tub as a valid electrical connection between the two systems.

The opposing viewpoints do not see the need by code for the bonding jumper, as the NEC does not distinguish between hot and cold water. They see it as one system, and do accept the mixing valve as a valid connection.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Something that hasn't been brought up that I wanted to ask Mr. Parks: if (as is your contention) a hot water system is a separate entity from cold water, then by definition the hot water system would include the hot water heater water feed line, yes? You've already stated that you accept all manner of plumbing fittings (except for mixing valves) to 'count' as part of the system - what about the "T" fitting that splits the water feed before the hot water tank? I would contend that even if they are two separate systems and the tub mixing valve wasn't acceptible, that "T" fitting joins the hot and cold water systems, and the only requirement to bond past the water heater would be if the piping was likely to become energized, local code adaptation, or in a hot water heater's installation instructions.

You are the closest so far to understanding me.

The hot water tank is NOT bonding the two (as I call it) seperate systems.

There is NO tee between the hot and cold (systems).

I am debating 250.104(A)(1) and nothing else.

250.104(A)(1) only takes us to 250.64(A),(B), and (E); and 250.66 NO other code section.

250.104(B) does not apply to """""metal water piping"""".

"Likely" nor is "energized" is in 250.104(A)(1)

 

[jxofaltrds]

OK

Tell me how you would 'bond' this:

1) Copper feeds the structure. It is over 10' long (underground).

2) Copper pipes inside the structure.

3) Water meter within 1' of the outside wall.

4) A water filter is installed at 6' inside the structure.

5) This, plastic, filter isolates ALL the metal water piping following it.

What would you bond/ground and how? And why!