Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Effective November 1st 2006, Section 2704 of the FBC and Section E3303 of the FRC will be amended to state:

Metal framing members. Metal framing members shall be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that may energize the framing and be sized in accordance with the National Electrical Code Table 250.122. For the purpose of this section, a grounded metal outlet box attached to the framing shall be permitted.
Click to expand...

By the way, the 2005 NEC will be adopted at the same time with no additional deletions or amendments.
 
Re: Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

bphgravity said:
Effective November 1st 2006, Section 2704 of the FBC and Section E3303 of the FRC will be amended to state:

Metal framing members. Metal framing members shall be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that may energize the framing and be sized in accordance with the National Electrical Code Table 250.122. For the purpose of this section, a grounded metal outlet box attached to the framing shall be permitted.
Click to expand...

By the way, the 2005 NEC will be adopted at the same time with no additional deletions or amendments.
Click to expand...

Are we talking steel studs here?

If so, how does FL get around the prohibition of using sheet metal screws as a bonding means, since these things are all tied together with sheet metal screws?
 
Re: Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

petersonra said:
Are we talking steel studs here?

If so, how does FL get around the prohibition of using sheet metal screws as a bonding means, since these things are all tied together with sheet metal screws?
Click to expand...

1. Yes

2. During the hearing, a gentleman arguing in favor of the proposal provided a comment from CMP 5 that stated the requirements of 250.8 only apply to grounding and bonding connections to enclosures and not to other uses of sheet metal screws for attachment of components of a structure together. The CMP even made it clear that 2 or more sheet metal screws used to attach a metal box to a metal stud was sufficient for bonding purposes and didn't conflict with the intent of 250.8. I don't have the actual transcript nor was I there to hear the arguments first hand.

As soon as I have a copy of the minutes or a report on the glitch cycle amendments, I will post it here.
 
Re: Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

bphgravity said:
The CMP even made it clear that 2 or more sheet metal screws used to attach a metal box to a metal stud was sufficient for bonding purposes...
Click to expand...

After sheetrockers are done beating on it, you're lucky there's any screws at all holding it on, much less forming a useful bond. Some seem very fond of just unscrewing boxes near door frames where it would be too much effort to bevel the back side of the rock and do a proper job fitting it around the mud rings.
 
Re: Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

Metal framing members shall be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that may energize the framing...
Click to expand...
So, you'll be needing to install a junction box in the wall for any circuits passing through, hmm? :p

Literally speaking, the circuit passing through the steel studs is to be bonded to the studs. So if a house-panel lighting circuit (for example, exterior wall-paks on the building) is passing through, then that circuit's EGC is to be connected to the studs.

Everyone is going to assume that the local unit's branch circuit EGC's can do the job, but that's not what it says.

Wouldn't it be easier to regulate what size screws the drywallers and medicine cabinet installers use?
 
This came from an incident in which a 1-1/4 inch drywall screw went all the way through the sheetrock into a piece of NM energizing the stud and also a metal dryer vent box that was mounted to the stud. An appliance installer was connecting a dryer vent to the now energized dryer vent box and the grounded dryer. He completed the circuit and he died.

bphgravity, my understanding from our local code committee and from our department is that the 2005 NEC is going into effect on July 1, 2006.
 
tonyi said:
Was there a 300.4 violation here that started the whole sad sequence of events?
Click to expand...

If one were using plastic boxes, it would seem like snaking an EGC out the back of the box and screwing it to the studs would satisfy this requirement, but I wonder if that is code legal to do so. It would appear to me the only way to meet this requirement and still be code legal would be to use a metal box in at least one place in each metal studded wall segment.

I have always thought bonding these things was a good idea in any case.
 
Re: Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

georgestolz said:
Metal framing members shall be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that may energize the framing...
Click to expand...
So, you'll be needing to install a junction box in the wall for any circuits passing through, hmm? :p

Literally speaking, the circuit passing through the steel studs is to be bonded to the studs. So if a house-panel lighting circuit (for example, exterior wall-paks on the building) is passing through, then that circuit's EGC is to be connected to the studs.

Everyone is going to assume that the local unit's branch circuit EGC's can do the job, but that's not what it says.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I think you are correct. And since you can't hide a jbox inside a wall, I wonder where you are going to put it. Sounds like someone did not think this through carefully.

It seems to me this is akin to bonding anything that may be likely to get energized, or at least should be. You don't have to bond every EGC to building steel. It is done in just one spot.
 
Re: Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

petersonra said:
And since you can't hide a jbox inside a wall, I wonder where you are going to put it.
Click to expand...

The key wording here seems to be "...shall be permitted" -- a box isn't the requirement per se. You could do it some other way.
 
Re: Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

tonyi said:
petersonra said:
And since you can't hide a jbox inside a wall, I wonder where you are going to put it.
Click to expand...

The key wording here seems to be "...shall be permitted" -- a box isn't the requirement per se. You could do it some other way.
Click to expand...

I don't see any practical alternative.
 
Re: Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

petersonra said:
tonyi said:
petersonra said:
And since you can't hide a jbox inside a wall, I wonder where you are going to put it.
Click to expand...

The key wording here seems to be "...shall be permitted" -- a box isn't the requirement per se. You could do it some other way.
Click to expand...

I don't see any practical alternative.
Click to expand...

"...shall be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor..."

There's no mention of where this bond must occur. No reason I see why it couldn't be on the gnd bar at the panel...where they're all tied together anyway. Then one loop of green/bare #12/#10 (or whatever sized to what's in the walls) through the attic hitting the non-contiguous top plates catches all the branches/feeders/appliances in one shot.

In a normal sized house there's not going to be too many sections of non-contiguous framing that would need to be connected. Looking around my 1800sq/ft place it appears all the framing, except around the panel in the garage is interconnected. A 15' #10 jumper from the panel on the garage wall to the main framing would catch it all.
 
Hey, them Florida guru's forgot about aluminum frame windows. I suggest ammending the Florida code to ensure that a proper size bonding conductor is attached to each and every aluminum window frame, even on wood buildings. Also metal door knobs, and metal hinges. And, lets not forget that ornamental metal fence in the front yard. I need engineering help. How can we bond the metal cars parked in Florida garages?
 
Re: Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

would a small size wire run by itself without benefit of protection inside a conduit or cable be code legal? The only place I can think of where this would be allowed is along the outside of a piece of flex.



tonyi said:
petersonra said:
tonyi said:
petersonra said:
And since you can't hide a jbox inside a wall, I wonder where you are going to put it.
Click to expand...

The key wording here seems to be "...shall be permitted" -- a box isn't the requirement per se. You could do it some other way.
Click to expand...

I don't see any practical alternative.
Click to expand...

"...shall be bonded to the equipment grounding conductor..."

There's no mention of where this bond must occur. No reason I see why it couldn't be on the gnd bar at the panel...where they're all tied together anyway. Then one loop of green/bare #12/#10 (or whatever sized to what's in the walls) through the attic hitting the non-contiguous top plates catches all the branches/feeders/appliances in one shot.

In a normal sized house there's not going to be too many sections of non-contiguous framing that would need to be connected. Looking around my 1800sq/ft place it appears all the framing, except around the panel in the garage is interconnected. A 15' #10 jumper from the panel on the garage wall to the main framing would catch it all.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Adopted Bonding Requirements in Florida

petersonra said:
would a small size wire run by itself without benefit of protection inside a conduit or cable be code legal?
Click to expand...

There's two possible thought tracks I can see so far here.

250.104(C) sends us to 250.64(B) and table 250.66 so it looks like a #8 shoved through some cable armor to the framing for a 100A service

Q: are studs a "building frame"? (given that they're structural enough to support EMT), because that sends you down the 250.104(C) track and ultimately to the #8 as a minimum (and cable armor for the bond wire)

Treating the framing like 250.104(B) "other metal piping" makes a LOT more sense to me. Then you use the more reasonable 250.122 table and size the bond to the largest thing that might short to the framing (and no mention of armor/protection for bond wire)
 
Sheetrockers are brutal down here Pierre and many are illegals. The way they slam the stuff up, supervision is probably impossible in any meaningful way.

Piecework rough in guys are pretty lousy too sometimes and aren't supervised well either in many cases.

Its been said we live in an age of diminished expectations :x
 
I second Pierre's opinion...

The 2005 NEC will not be adopted until November 1st of this year. There has been some talk that the Florida Building Commission will skip the adoption of the 2008 NEC and jump right to the 2011 when it is released. The state will be under the 2005 until then.
 
bphgravity said:
I second Pierre's opinion...

The 2005 NEC will not be adopted until November 1st of this year. There has been some talk that the Florida Building Commission will skip the adoption of the 2008 NEC and jump right to the 2011 when it is released. The state will be under the 2005 until then.
Click to expand...
Where can I find this? I have looked at the BOAF and the state FBC sites and could not find the effective date for TAC mod 1215 and 1453. Right now we are set to put forth the changes on July 1, but of course want to be compliant with the state . Any help would be appreciated, thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top