Resolving dispute with AHJ

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jerrygar

Member
Location
Keaau, Hawaii
Dennis,

In a recent post regarding bonding of gas pipes you wrote

As long as the gas piping has an appliance that has an electrical circuit then it is not necessary. 250.104(B) allows the egc to be used to bond the pipe.

In my jurisdiction the AHJ interprets this section to mean that all gas piping must be bonded with an unspliced #8 conductor back to the service. I have argued this with them many times and given up. I just run the wire. But their interpretation is so wrong. Any advice on how to make them "see the error of their ways?"

Jerry
 
infinity

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Does he have a boss? As long as this isn't CSST Dennis is correct so I would go over his head.

IMO the intent of 250.104(B) is pretty clear.
 
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
(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 the service equipment enclosure; the grounded
conductor at the service; the grounding electrode conductor,
if of sufficient size; or to one or more grounding electrodes
used. The bonding conductor(s) or 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.

Does he think that another circuit may energize the gas piping?

We have all seen multiple NM cables (home runs) in contact with gas piping.

Don't know if I would use the first part of (B) I would probably approve using the egc of the appliance.

Building code use to say that the piping was effectively bonded in you example.
 
Dennis Alwon

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
I wrote a proposal to state that if the appliance grounding the gas pipe was a cord and plug, such as a range then the gas pipe needed to be bonded directly. My reason was if a gas range was removed then the pipe would no longer be bonded. The cmp responded that if there were no appliance hookup up with electricity then the piping would not likely be energized. So they were saying that gas piping didn't need to grounded in that case, at all. I thought all metal piping needed to be grounded.....

I say this because this should explain to the ahj where the cmp is coming from. The key is likely to be energized.... Anyway the art. are posted above
 
Ponchik

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
FWIW, even though the NEC say "LIKELY to become energized by the circuit..." I always go one step beyond the minimum NEC requirement and bond the GAS/COLD/HOT using a #12 at the water heater.

But requiring what the OP has mentioned, doesn't make sense. Have you asked them to show you the code that they are following? ask them what is their reason and have them explain it to you "the WHY" behind their reason. Maybe they have a reason as to "WHY" they do that.
 
weressl

weressl

Esteemed Member
Location
Texas by the Gulf, geat crab, great shrimp
jerrygar said:
Dennis,

In a recent post regarding bonding of gas pipes you wrote

As long as the gas piping has an appliance that has an electrical circuit then it is not necessary. 250.104(B) allows the egc to be used to bond the pipe.

In my jurisdiction the AHJ interprets this section to mean that all gas piping must be bonded with an unspliced #8 conductor back to the service. I have argued this with them many times and given up. I just run the wire. But their interpretation is so wrong. Any advice on how to make them "see the error of their ways?"

Jerry
Click to expand...

Invite to him to this forum?! I think going over his head to his boss is unwise for two reasons. Most of these positions are political appointees/hires and they stick together like glue. Even in the market world, bosses tend to protect their workers for professional and personal reasons. Secondly, even if you succeed convincing his boss, in the future it is the AHJ you will be dealing with and he has 'authority' to make your life miserable. Even if he is rational and fair, it is human nature to hold an adversary position toward those who have once 'bested' us, so there will be an underlying hostility in his dealings with you.
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
weressl said:
I think going over his head to his boss is unwise for two reasons. Most of these positions are political appointees/hires and they stick together like glue. Even in the market world, bosses tend to protect their workers for professional and personal reasons. Secondly, even if you succeed convincing his boss, in the future it is the AHJ you will be dealing with and he has 'authority' to make your life miserable. Even if he is rational and fair, it is human nature to hold an adversary position toward those who have once 'bested' us, so there will be an underlying hostility in his dealings with you.
Click to expand...


As painful as it is for me:D I have to agree with weressl on this based on the cost of complying with the request.

I think fighting this would cost more than just doing it, by cost I mean both the lost time and the future hard time it may cause.

8 THHN is not expensive and in most cases the run will be short.
 
jumper

jumper

Senior Member
Location
3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
iwire said:
As painful as it is for me:D I have to agree with weressl on this based on the cost of complying with the request.

I think fighting this would cost more than just doing it, by cost I mean both the lost time and the future hard time it may cause.

8 THHN is not expensive and in most cases the run will be short.
Click to expand...

Heck, you want painful...I agree with you and let me tell ya Yank, that hurts.:D

The best approach at this time is to verify what the local inspection authority is requiring regarding bonding metal gas piping and meet those requirements, which are now often inconsistent with the NEC minimum. Coordination between gas piping system installers, electrical contractors and inspectors is essential to meet the applicable minimum requirements of both safety standards.
Click to expand...

Same author and a CMP member.

http://www.neca-neis.org/newsletter/report.cfm?articleID=9889

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/2009/07/bonding-metal-gas-piping/
 
weressl

weressl

Esteemed Member
Location
Texas by the Gulf, geat crab, great shrimp
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
weressl said:
So if the bonding is the requirement of NFPA 54, how can the EC be held liable for that? Conversely would the mechanical guy be responsible for installing the bonding? Uh-oh...a trade-war is brewing:lol:
Click to expand...

jumper said:
Oh great, now I have to actually think. :)
Click to expand...

And it is outside the electrical inspectors jurisdiction unless he is a plumbing inspector also! LOL.

I said this before.

90.4 Enforcement. This Code is intended to be suitable
for mandatory application by governmental bodies that exercise
legal jurisdiction over electrical installations,
 
D

dnbob

Senior Member
Location
Rochester, MN
edward said:
FWIW, even though the NEC say "LIKELY to become energized by the circuit..." I always go one step beyond the minimum NEC requirement and bond the GAS/COLD/HOT using a #12 at the water heater.



What code article would allow bonding the above piping with a #12?
Click to expand...
 
Dennis Alwon

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
dnbob said:
edward said:
FWIW, even though the NEC say "LIKELY to become energized by the circuit..." I always go one step beyond the minimum NEC requirement and bond the GAS/COLD/HOT using a #12 at the water heater.



What code article would allow bonding the above piping with a #12?
Click to expand...

I think he is stating that he does the required bonding and then jumpers the hot water & gas pipe with #12- this is beyond what the nec requires.
Click to expand...
 
H

hillbilly1

Senior Member
Location
North Georgia mountains
Occupation
Owner/electrical contractor
Yeah, it pays to pick your battles, we had one job, an extended stay hotel where the plan reviewer approved using Romex, but when the inspector came out, he said it had to be in mc cable, big cost difference. Appealed it and won, because an extended stay hotel is considered transient housing, not a standard hotel.
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
hillbilly1 said:
Yeah, it pays to pick your battles, we had one job, an extended stay hotel where the plan reviewer approved using Romex, but when the inspector came out, he said it had to be in mc cable, big cost difference. Appealed it and won, because an extended stay hotel is considered transient housing, not a standard hotel.
Click to expand...

NM is used in many Hotels, Motels, Resorts, the only issue is really the construction type allowed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top