Bonding Water Pipe
- Thread starter physis
- Start date
- Status
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
You need to clarify a little as this would be the norm for most basment's
You need to clarify a little as this would be the norm for most basment's
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
After reading it again I think I'm seeing what you getting at. The water pipe enter's the building beyond the 5' limit but it is not accessible, and you want to know if it ok to just count what is accessible in the 5' rule?
After reading it again I think I'm seeing what you getting at. The water pipe enter's the building beyond the 5' limit but it is not accessible, and you want to know if it ok to just count what is accessible in the 5' rule?
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
Well then I don't understand your question then:
The requirement of the driven rod electrode is still required to meet 250.56 which is why the requirment of 250.53(D)(2) Without the water pipe meeting the requirments 250.52(A)(1) we still have to 1. bond the water pipes in the building and 2. drive a ground rod or two. Or use another type of electrode.
Is this what your looking for?
Well then I don't understand your question then:
As it is a requirement and does not have to be visible. Unless you are worried that we might be using the water pipe as an electrode without knowing that it is in fact more than 10' in contact with Earth? Which doesn't change anything;
The requirement of the driven rod electrode is still required to meet 250.56 which is why the requirment of 250.53(D)(2) Without the water pipe meeting the requirments 250.52(A)(1) we still have to 1. bond the water pipes in the building and 2. drive a ground rod or two. Or use another type of electrode.
Is this what your looking for?
physis
Senior Member
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
I'm sorry to seem vague but it's really no more complicated than 250.52(A)(1). at least as far as I know.
I'm being told this is no good. The issue is that the bond could have been done outside of the building where it would be visible for inspection. I just want to get some intelligent opinions.
Editted for clearity
[ October 20, 2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
I'm sorry to seem vague but it's really no more complicated than 250.52(A)(1). at least as far as I know.
I'm being told this is no good. The issue is that the bond could have been done outside of the building where it would be visible for inspection. I just want to get some intelligent opinions.
Editted for clearity
[ October 20, 2004, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
george t. everett
Senior Member
- Location
- New York
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
Sounds like the inspector doesn't want to go in the crawl space.
Sounds like the inspector doesn't want to go in the crawl space.
physis
Senior Member
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
Actually the inspector's not the problem, he's blessed it. I know, then what do I care? I'm not an EC and I'm working for a GC on this building who, for some reason, is working under a home owner permit. (This caused me to check the GC's lisence status and it's ok). Normally the GC can pull the permit for electrical, for whatever reason that's not happening in this case. So, there's a third party EC he's hired to pull the permit. He's the problem.
Actually the inspector's not the problem, he's blessed it. I know, then what do I care? I'm not an EC and I'm working for a GC on this building who, for some reason, is working under a home owner permit. (This caused me to check the GC's lisence status and it's ok). Normally the GC can pull the permit for electrical, for whatever reason that's not happening in this case. So, there's a third party EC he's hired to pull the permit. He's the problem.
sandsnow
Senior Member
- Location
- Southern California
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
Sam
I'm using the 1999NEC because we're both in CA
The code section you gave appears to be 2002 which should not be in effect in our state.
The way I understand the requirement of BONDING the interior metal water line is that it can be bonded anywhere that is accessible. 250-104(a)
The 5 foot rule only comes into effect when te water line is a grounding electrode or to interconnect electrodes. see 250-50 last paragraph
250-50(a)(1)requires a bonding jumper around any metering or filtering equipment.
So you could have BONDED it inside or outside anywhere you felt like as long as you comply with the above
Sam
I'm using the 1999NEC because we're both in CA
The code section you gave appears to be 2002 which should not be in effect in our state.
The way I understand the requirement of BONDING the interior metal water line is that it can be bonded anywhere that is accessible. 250-104(a)
The 5 foot rule only comes into effect when te water line is a grounding electrode or to interconnect electrodes. see 250-50 last paragraph
250-50(a)(1)requires a bonding jumper around any metering or filtering equipment.
So you could have BONDED it inside or outside anywhere you felt like as long as you comply with the above
physis
Senior Member
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
Hi Larry, nice to hear from you again. Yeah I'm using 2002, Is all of Caleefornia (Arnold) going to be adopting 2002 in January or is it independant per city or county?
I talked to another inspector yesterday who was there for something else (he used to be a C-10 so we became best friends). He said he wasn't going to crawl in there to look at it but it's fine where it is.
I like to put the bonding clamps inside because I never see them with half of the clamp missing hanging 3 inches from the electrode in basements.
He, also, when asked about the GEC being continuous to both electrodes said it should be. I pointed out that IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE and quoted scripture and he conceided if I've invested that much effort he's sure Im right.
Hi Larry, nice to hear from you again. Yeah I'm using 2002, Is all of Caleefornia (Arnold) going to be adopting 2002 in January or is it independant per city or county?
I talked to another inspector yesterday who was there for something else (he used to be a C-10 so we became best friends). He said he wasn't going to crawl in there to look at it but it's fine where it is.
I like to put the bonding clamps inside because I never see them with half of the clamp missing hanging 3 inches from the electrode in basements.
He, also, when asked about the GEC being continuous to both electrodes said it should be. I pointed out that IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE and quoted scripture and he conceided if I've invested that much effort he's sure Im right.
sandsnow
Senior Member
- Location
- Southern California
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
Originally posted by physis:
Hi Larry, nice to hear from you again. Yeah I'm using 2002, Is all of Caleefornia (Arnold) going to be adopting 2002 in January or is it independant per city or county?
Thanks, nice to hear from you. That's the rumor
I talked to another inspector yesterday who was there for something else (he used to be a C-10 so we became best friends). He said he wasn't going to crawl in there to look at it but it's fine where it is.
I like to put the bonding clamps inside because I never see them with half of the clamp missing hanging 3 inches from the electrode in basements.
Most people here put it on the water heater input pipe. or if the water comes in near the service the clamp goes on the pipe in the wall with a 2gang ring for access.
He, also, when asked about the GEC being continuous to both electrodes said it should be. I pointed out that IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE and quoted scripture and he conceided if I've invested that much effort he's sure Im right.
Most people here run continuous from panel to ufer below then to CW then to gas. It's been done that way for so long, the residential inspectors won't accept anything else, then that's where I get involved to let them know another way is possible.
physis
Senior Member
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
250.104(A)(1) Seems to repeat 250.52(A)(1) without the 5' requirement. But adds the accessability requirement that's not in 250.52(A)(1). If I'm reading this right I think these two codes need to be combined into one code to releive the obvious difficulty that can be caused.
250.52(B)(1)Metal underground gas piping system.
I'm not clear how I should interpret this but I'm told you bond the gas after the meter. Is the meter listed as an insulator or something? Cause if not I think that violates 250.52(B)(1)
I personally hate the idea of bonding the gas pipe. If you want to make an ignition spark that gets you half way there. (Hi Charlie).
Thanks for your responses Larry, I like to get the inspector's point of view. I wish more of you guys would participate.
[ October 26, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
As unfortunate as it sounds it's surprizing to see something that's basicly a matter of business being done in as little as three years in this state. You could lay odds on whether or not it's adopted on time.
I'm sorry I'm referencing 2002. 250.50 says you must include water pipe in electrode system if available. 250.52(A)(1) says it cannot be bonded more than five feet from enterance. I haven't seen a lot of water heaters within five feet of enterance.
250.104(A)(1) Seems to repeat 250.52(A)(1) without the 5' requirement. But adds the accessability requirement that's not in 250.52(A)(1). If I'm reading this right I think these two codes need to be combined into one code to releive the obvious difficulty that can be caused.
I don't do get to do much new construction or similar situations where this would apply but that's a great method, I love it.
250.52(B) Electrodes not permitted.
250.52(B)(1)Metal underground gas piping system.
I'm not clear how I should interpret this but I'm told you bond the gas after the meter. Is the meter listed as an insulator or something? Cause if not I think that violates 250.52(B)(1)
I personally hate the idea of bonding the gas pipe. If you want to make an ignition spark that gets you half way there. (Hi Charlie).
I'm on board with you here Larry. I'm running into severe resistance on this. But I will not accept being compelled to do things based on ignorance. I keep hearing how it's not worth while to argue. What argue? 250.64(F) is one paragraph. I guess it's not worth it to open the book either.
Thanks for your responses Larry, I like to get the inspector's point of view. I wish more of you guys would participate.
[ October 26, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
pierre
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
250.50 is the requirement of the Grounding Electrode System , which is Part III of Article 250. Bonding the cold waterpipe is 250.104, which is Part V of Article 250.
These are two different requirements, for two distinctly different reasons.
To answer your original question, yes you can "bond" the cold water within 5 feet of it's entrance to the building.
Bonding of gas pipe (250.104) is essential if it may become energized. If there is a gas appliance, such as a dryer, the EGC run with the branch circuit conductors is permitted as the bond (250.104(B), the second to last sentence of that paragragh.
250.52(B) says the gas pipe is not permitted as an ELECTRODE. - but it may still be required to be "bonded"
The Accessibility requirement for 250.52(A)(1) is found at 250.68(A)
Some of the requirements for sizing and locations in Part III of 250 are 'scattered' all about Part III. I have my students write in their books to keep the requirements closer and more handy.
Pierre
250.50 is the requirement of the Grounding Electrode System , which is Part III of Article 250. Bonding the cold waterpipe is 250.104, which is Part V of Article 250.
These are two different requirements, for two distinctly different reasons.
To answer your original question, yes you can "bond" the cold water within 5 feet of it's entrance to the building.
Bonding of gas pipe (250.104) is essential if it may become energized. If there is a gas appliance, such as a dryer, the EGC run with the branch circuit conductors is permitted as the bond (250.104(B), the second to last sentence of that paragragh.
250.52(B) says the gas pipe is not permitted as an ELECTRODE. - but it may still be required to be "bonded"
The Accessibility requirement for 250.52(A)(1) is found at 250.68(A)
Some of the requirements for sizing and locations in Part III of 250 are 'scattered' all about Part III. I have my students write in their books to keep the requirements closer and more handy.
Pierre
sandsnow
Senior Member
- Location
- Southern California
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
I can't speak to the 2002, because my book is at work, but you can "bond" the water anywhere along it's length. Am i wrong here
physis
Senior Member
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
I think Iwire's right, I'm gonna have to read this whole article again.
I'm looking at 250.104(B) ......Metal piping system(s), including gas piping, that may become energized shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure at the service, ............ The equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that may energize the piping shall be permitted to serve as the bonding means.
Ok, this is conditional. Not necessarily required. Right?
If it is required, I'm really curious here how the gas pipe knows whether or not to consider itself an electrode. 250.104(B) and 250.52(B)(1) seem to me to be in direct conflict unless the gas pipe never hits the ground.
I kind of get that if you bond the gas pipe your intention might not be to use it as an electrode. But isn't that what you did anyway? Do you ask it to please not act like an electrode because the code will be unhappy?
So 250.52(A)(1) is for in the ground and 250.104(A)(1) is for after the water heater?
I understand that in one case you're causing continuity to the earth. And in the other you're bonding metal to the neutral at the panel. But isn't this all the same. All these points are bonded at the MBJ.
[ October 27, 2004, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
I think Iwire's right, I'm gonna have to read this whole article again.
I'm looking at 250.104(B) ......Metal piping system(s), including gas piping, that may become energized shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure at the service, ............ The equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that may energize the piping shall be permitted to serve as the bonding means.
Ok, this is conditional. Not necessarily required. Right?
If it is required, I'm really curious here how the gas pipe knows whether or not to consider itself an electrode. 250.104(B) and 250.52(B)(1) seem to me to be in direct conflict unless the gas pipe never hits the ground.
I kind of get that if you bond the gas pipe your intention might not be to use it as an electrode. But isn't that what you did anyway? Do you ask it to please not act like an electrode because the code will be unhappy?
So 250.52(A)(1) is for in the ground and 250.104(A)(1) is for after the water heater?
I understand that in one case you're causing continuity to the earth. And in the other you're bonding metal to the neutral at the panel. But isn't this all the same. All these points are bonded at the MBJ.
[ October 27, 2004, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
Sam: I beleive the ga piping has a dielectric fitting at the meter so that bonding it does not create a grounding electrode. I think to create an electrode out of it you would have to physically connect the conductor to the underground portion of the gas piping.
Sam: I beleive the ga piping has a dielectric fitting at the meter so that bonding it does not create a grounding electrode. I think to create an electrode out of it you would have to physically connect the conductor to the underground portion of the gas piping.
sandsnow
Senior Member
- Location
- Southern California
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
read the definitions in Art 100 grounded, bonded etc.
Yes everything is connected together, but we connect at different points to do different things.
Sam
read the definitions in Art 100 grounded, bonded etc.
Yes everything is connected together, but we connect at different points to do different things.
physis
Senior Member
Re: Bonding Water Pipe
What I meant was that if the gas pipe is electrically continuous into the ground then bonding it at any point would cause it to be a grounding electrode. 250.104(B) would cause (in my opinion) a violation of 250.52(B)(1).
If, as Ryan says, it's insulated from the underground gas pipe at the meter then I'm happy, the gas pipe's doesn't become an electrode.
What I meant was that if the gas pipe is electrically continuous into the ground then bonding it at any point would cause it to be a grounding electrode. 250.104(B) would cause (in my opinion) a violation of 250.52(B)(1).
If, as Ryan says, it's insulated from the underground gas pipe at the meter then I'm happy,
the gas pipe's doesn't become an electrode.- Status