Bonding the copper plumbing in a dwelling.?

[hurk27]

Run a 250.66 sized GEC to the water pipe at street side of water meter jumper to the house side of water filter, and be done with two clamps.

 

[iwire]

Run a 250.66 sized GEC to the water pipe at street side of water meter jumper to the house side of water filter, and be done with two clamps.

Same here.

 

[Johnmcca]

using 250.104 (B) I'd jump it using table 250.122
Mike P said 6' not 5'

 

[jxofaltrds]

"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. "

Al

First you are starting to help me explain this.

Where does 250.104(A)(1) take us to (B)?

To everyone what does 250.104(A) cover?
Answer metal water pipng system(s).

What does 250.104(B) cover?
Answer Other metal piping.

Where does metal water piping STOP becoming metal water piping?

BTW we do not have to bond the cold water either.

Why? It is NOT a complete system. It has no hot water supply system. So it is not complete.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Run a 250.66 sized GEC to the water pipe at street side of water meter jumper to the house side of water filter, and be done with two clamps.

YES

Now we have a start.

But tell me WHY.

 

[hurk27]

because I can run one conductor instead of two, to serve both 250.52(A)(1) requirement, and 250.104(A)'s requirement.

and ask your self this question. Why is the following located in the grounding electrode article and not in the bonding article?

250.53(D)(1) Continuity. Continuity of the grounding path or the bonding connection to interior piping shall not rely on water meters or filtering devices and similar equipment.

claiming a solid metal body mixing valve similar to a "plastic water filter" is a bit of a stretch, or a readily removable water meter for that matter. nothing similar to either

 

[hurk27]

also there are water meters that we are not required to bond across, that are solid body (imagine that), the water meters that have the X frame that doesn't break the continuity of the water pipe when the meter is removed, is not required to have to be bonded across, and I have seen a write up on that one by some national board, just cant remember where I saw it, it showed sevral water meter yokes that didn't not require to be bonded across.

 

[jxofaltrds]

because I can run one conductor instead of two, to serve both 250.52(A)(1) requirement, and 250.104(A)'s requirement.

and ask your self this question. Why is the following located in the grounding electrode article and not in the bonding article?



claiming a solid metal body mixing valve similar to a "plastic water filter" is a bit of a stretch, or a readily removable water meter for that matter. nothing similar to either

Wayne

"also there are water meters that we are not required to bond across, that are solid body (imagine that), the water meters that have the X frame that doesn't break the continuity of the water pipe when the meter is removed, is not required to have to be bonded across, and I have seen a write up on that one by some national board, just cant remember where I saw it, it showed sevral water meter yokes that didn't not require to be bonded across."

I agree with you. Again we are starting to agree.

Thank you. What is similar equipment?

Anyone:
Show me where, in writing not an opinion, plumbing fixtures are part of the metal water piping system(s). They are not.

Is a switch part of a branch circuit?


A fixture sounds like it could be 'equipment'.

 

[JFletcher]

So that I may keep some continuity in our discussion, I'll reply to these line-by-line:

You are the closest so far to understanding me.

Thank you. I will take that as a compliment.

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

I will agree with you there, the hot water tank itself is not a bond. But I must ask you, what constitutes a "complete hot water system"? This is very important to me, so please answer it so I may understand. If you've answered this in a previous post, a post # will suffice.

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

I suppose that would depend on the definitions of the systems. The fitting to which I am referring is one I've seen on every copper-piped home I've ever worked in. Water comes in on a 1/2" or 3/4" line, and hits a T fitting. From there cold water goes to faucets and what not and also to the hot water heater. Can we agree on this, or is there some other plumbing standard or device/fitting to split the water service in the building (single-home dwelling) between hot and cold water?

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.

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

Okay, I combined these since we are limiting ourselves to 250.104(A)(1) and the referenced 250.64 sections. In that respect, I would point out that nowhere does the NEC define "metal water piping system(s)", and it does not defer to any plumbing codes to define it.

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

Reading is as-written, and putting aside for the moment what has been cited by others, I would tend to agree with you.

 

[jwelectric]

For George

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

Although you can show nothing from any code, electrical or plumbing, that calls them anything other than potable water.

"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.

It sure is very clear from the panel statements.

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.

If there is a water piping system that is not completely 100% metal then that water piping system would be something ?other? than a metal water piping system.
104(A) is addressing a complete metal water piping system and 104(B) is addressing a piping system that is intermixed or other than complete metal piping system.

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.

The ?S? means such things as gray water such as in a irrigation system, circulating hot water used for heat or cooling, and the potable water system. All of these are water systems. If either of these are not 100% metal water pipes then they are ?other? piping systems. In other words they are something different than complete metal water piping systems.

I can?t help but wonder why the CMP and the NFPA would write the section like this; (1) General. Metal water piping system(s) installed
Notice the ?S? is in parentheses (s)
Could the section be addressing one metal water piping system such as the potable water and the s in parentheses was in case another piping system was installed?

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

What I am saying is that if I see any nonmetallic piping what so ever I am not going to install a bond of any kind.

 

[hurk27]

Wayne

"also there are water meters that we are not required to bond across, that are solid body (imagine that), the water meters that have the X frame that doesn't break the continuity of the water pipe when the meter is removed, is not required to have to be bonded across, and I have seen a write up on that one by some national board, just cant remember where I saw it, it showed several water meter yokes that didn't not require to be bonded across."

I agree with you. Again we are starting to agree.

Thank you. What is similar equipment?

Anyone:
Show me where, in writing not an opinion, plumbing fixtures are part of the metal water piping system(s). They are not.

Is a switch part of a branch circuit?


A fixture sounds like it could be 'equipment'.

And a return challenge, where is it even require for the continuity of the plumbing system to only be by the "piping system" parts, and not allowed to be made by connections of other means? the very clamp(s) and piece of wire, you so require are also not part of the so called (piping system).

the meter yokes I mention as to not requiring a jumper also are not part of a "piping system" yet they are allowed to continue the continuity of the grounding of the said "piping system" are solid body mixing valve any different? and why are they, are they likely to be removed like a water meter? all of them at the same time?

I'm not seeing anything different being put into this discussion, almost all the views have been repeated many times, and it has not change each others views.

I feel we all just need to agree to disagree, at least until some new input can be made.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Is a switch part of a branch circuit?

A fixture sounds like it could be 'equipment'.

Mike,

Go look at Article 100 Definitions, and, specifically read the definition of Premises Wiring (System).

Both the switch and the branch circuit are part of the Premises Wiring (System).

Plumbing fixtures seem to be the counterpart of devices (see Art. 100 Definition).
Appliances such as a washer seem to be the counterpart of utilization equipment.

The comparisons are not good, however, as the water piping system requires the presence of a waste system for a complete "circuit" analogy.

Anyone:
Show me where, in writing not an opinion, plumbing fixtures are part of the metal water piping system(s). They are not.

Mike,

You told us we were discussing the NEC.

What the plumbing codes say about plumbing fixtures is beside the point.

The word system is used in the NEC, and the NEC is not quoting any plumbing codes with the word system.

Again, the National Electrical Code Making Panel quotes posted and reposted in this thread clarify that the 250.104(A) phrase metal water piping system must be COMPLETE, otherwise the water piping falls under 250.104(B).

Mike. . . . read what I just wrote again:

the National Electrical Code Making Panel quotes clarify that the 250.104(A) phrase metal water piping system must be COMPLETE, otherwise the water piping falls under 250.104(B).

That is how an electrically isolated section of conductive water piping becomes Other Metal Piping covered by 250.104(B).

 

[hurk27]

IMOH

Inspectors when enforcing a requirement should really think about the reason they are enforcing it.

one of the easiest guides to guide enforcement of law, would be to ask this question: would it stand up in a court of law if so challenged.

Here is just some of what the court would look at:

is it unnecessary?
does it provide an increase of safety that justifies the extra cost?
is there documents to prove this?
is there fact to prove this?

These are just some of the things that would be challenged by both party's.
and would have preponderance of evidence weighing one way or the other, to go either way.

If it is not this clear, then you should be asking yourself, should I be requiring this?