Bonding of Metal Docks

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
An apprentice friend called me, he is involved in installing some sort of fiberglass shore power pedestals on floating aluminum docks. He wanted to know if they should be bonding the docks.

Yeah I am asking before looking. :smile:
 
iwire said:
An apprentice friend called me, he is involved in installing some sort of fiberglass shore power pedestals on floating aluminum docks. He wanted to know if they should be bonding the docks.

Yeah I am asking before looking. :smile:
Click to expand...

Yes!

Answered without looking.:wink:
 
OK, I looked. Aside from 250.4(A)(4) theres this.

682.32 Bonding of Non?Current-Carrying Metal Parts.
All metal parts in contact with the water, all metal piping, tanks, and all non?current-carrying metal parts that may become energized shall be bonded to the grounding bus in the panelboard.
Click to expand...
 
We recently did one and we did bond it, but only because we used type G cable run on the metal frame work to feed the pedestals. Even with this installation, I am not sure that there is any code rule that would require this bonding as the metal is not "likely" to become energized. One thing to consider is that bonding the metal will energize it and that may be an issue if there are people in the water and touching the metal.
 
i agree with don, IMO bonding would not make it safer, and if it is sections of metal dock could you effectively bond the sections together,
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Chris,
I don't think that Article 682 would apply. This should be covered by 555.
Click to expand...
Granted it was a streach. But...

Safety concepts contained in the requirements of Articles 553, 555, 590, and 680 provided the foundation for the requirements in Article 682.
Click to expand...
Don, I can't find the NEC def of what is:

'likely to become energized'.:grin:

And 555 says nothing about bonding.
 
chris kennedy said:
I can't find the NEC def of what is:

'likely to become energized'.
Click to expand...

It is not in the NEC definitions, you need to use your dictionary or a thesaurus.

According to the 1st definition in most references: Likely means probable, it does not mean possible.
 
The code, in older editions, used the words "may become energized", but in the past few code cycles that has been changed to "likely to become energized". CMP 5 says that the two terms mean exactly the same thing, but I don't agree. Jim has it the way I see it. Likely means that it is probable, but the old term using the word "may" means that it is possible. When they changed the term, they greatly reduced the number of things that need to be bonded. Few things are "likely to become energized" but all conductive objects "may become energized".
 
Thank you all for responding, I really expected someone to say 'Yes 555.XX says it's required' I was quite surprised upon looking as well that bonding is not required.

I will pass the word to my friend. :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top