Hello Mr. Holt,
I am a first time poster. I work for an inspection agency that is contracted by a jurisdiction in the state of Maryland.
It has been suggested to me that the requirement for bonding of the metal water piping of a pump station associated with to a housing community, may in fact be causing the point of connection to corrode due to electrolyses. And that as an electrical inspector, I am incorrect to require these pipes to be bonded to the service as stated in the 2005 NEC article 250.104. It is my understanding, that the branch of the jurisdiction that I work in and that monitors these pump stations is impling, that the need for the bonding does not apply in this instance and it is more detrimental than the risk that would be involved if it were not bonded.
I guess my question is, which of us is incorrect and if I am incorrect, what would be an acceptable alternative?
Thank you for your time.
I am a first time poster. I work for an inspection agency that is contracted by a jurisdiction in the state of Maryland.
It has been suggested to me that the requirement for bonding of the metal water piping of a pump station associated with to a housing community, may in fact be causing the point of connection to corrode due to electrolyses. And that as an electrical inspector, I am incorrect to require these pipes to be bonded to the service as stated in the 2005 NEC article 250.104. It is my understanding, that the branch of the jurisdiction that I work in and that monitors these pump stations is impling, that the need for the bonding does not apply in this instance and it is more detrimental than the risk that would be involved if it were not bonded.
I guess my question is, which of us is incorrect and if I am incorrect, what would be an acceptable alternative?
Thank you for your time.