gas hot water heater jump or not

[jwelectric]

No, it's outlined in 250.53(D)(1), just as the heading of the picture (and the text of the section) states.

If you can't see this, I can't think of another way to express it, so I guess the discussion would be over, in that case.

Edit: I think I might draw up a few scenarios, to vote on, and to make our different interpretations more plain for discussion.

Yes George the title of the slide is 250.53 and I also understand that this bonding jumper would have to land as outlined in 250.104(A)(1) if there was no metal water pipe in contact with earth.
I understand that 250.53(D)(1) is saying that when I am bonding the water pipe to the electrode I can have nothing that breaks the continuity of the path from the point I bond to the pipe and the point I connect to the electrode such as meters, filters, pressure limiting devices or things such as these.

If you would be so kind and being you have nothing to do please answer these questions for me.

Using Mike?s slide; could I remove the jumper that is across the Removable Device and replace it with one that runs all the way back to the panel?

Could I remove the jumper that is across the Removable Device and run a jumper from the panel to any accessible point on the water system?

Just what is being bonded together with the jumper that is across the Removable Device?

 

[George Stolz]

Using Mike?s slide; could I remove the jumper that is across the Removable Device and replace it with one that runs all the way back to the panel?

I would say yes, the bonding would not be relying on removable equipment.

Could I remove the jumper that is across the Removable Device and run a jumper from the panel to any accessible point on the water system?

In line with 250.104, yes.

Just what is being bonded together with the jumper that is across the Removable Device?

The GES and the interior water piping. I see your point, the reason the conductor must continue to be present is due to 250.104. However, that doesn't negate how .53 forbids it from being done.

I'm having issues getting onto Photobucket from my Mac, I'll be back in a few. Since I have nothing else to do.

 

[George Stolz]

All right, so here goes. Since the forum software only allows 4 images, the first shall be this link. I think it's pretty self-explanatory, the red piping is the metallic interior water piping, the green is the portion of the water piping that we can legally connect a GEC to when the blue portion (underground) is 10' long.

So now, let's look at a couple different scenarios.

Scenario #1:

In this picture, we have connected the GEC right where the water pipe enters the building. There is something removable between the GEC point and the interior water piping. The prohibition from the GEC bonding through this removable item is 250.53(D)(1), as shown.

The interior metallic piping is required to be bonded per 250.104 (shown), and there is nothing wrong with allowing the GEC to do this for us. But, 250.53(D)(1) prohibits the GEC from performing this function through a removable device.

Scenario #2:

In this case, the GEC connection was made closer to the 5' limit imposed on us by 250.52(A)(1). Since the grounding path is through a removable item, we are forced to jumper across the removable item by 250.53(D)(1).

Scenario #3:

Now, the underground portion of the pipe is too short to be considered a grounding electrode. Therefore, 250.52 and 250.53 fly right out the window. There is no prohibition from removable items being used as the bonding path by 250.104, so all is good. We can bond anywhere we want.

Scenario #4:

In this scenario, where we've landed the GEC is between two removable objects in the piping system. Therefore, 250.53 (we have a grounding electrode again, it's 10' long) will now require a couple of jumpers, a combination of scenarios #1 and #2.

Do you agree with my representations of each scenario?

 

[jwelectric]

That is as good explanation of the process.

The only thing that I could add would be that in scenario 1 the jumper labeled 250.53(D)(1) across the device could be left off and a jumper installed on the forth pipe down and ran to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or to any other grounding electrodes used. (I changed the underlined words to show that the water pipe electrode is not being used [see 250.104(A)(1)])

With your permission I would like to use your pictures. Good work.

 

[George Stolz]

The only thing that I could add...

I agree with your addition. However, in most cases, it would be simpler to use the GEC and install a short jumper, right?

With your permission I would like to use your pictures.

Of course.

Now, I'm going to spin the tables on you.

In scenario #1, the removable device is a water heater. There are no mixing valves downstream of the water heater to perform the bonding for us.

Do you still agree?

 

[LarryFine]

Larry, can you clarify that statement?

Sure. As one example, a separate conductor could be run to each pipe from the panel.

I'd also look for plumber-installed substitutes, such as the perforated (1/2" and 3/4" holes) copper straps they sometimes use to locate stub-outs. Also, when pipes cross, they usually solder them together to minimize friction-produced holes.

 

[George Stolz]

Larry, you've only posted four times in this thread, yet you just succeeded in frying my brain.

 

[jwelectric]

In scenario #1, the removable device is a water heater. There are no mixing valves downstream of the water heater to perform the bonding for us.

If there was a water heater installed there would have to be a tee for the cold water. If there was no device such as a water meter or filter between conductor titled 25.52(A)(1) and the tee for the cold water then nothing else would be required. The pipe would be the bonding path (conductor) that would satisfy the requirements of 250.104(A)(1).
The house side of that bonding jumper is to comply with 250.104(A) and here we are told that any accessible point on the metal water pipe.

I like Mike Holt?s use of the words ?removable device? as this best describes things such as water meters, water filters, softeners and such.
All that is said in 250.53(D)(1) is that if I have a metal water meter or a metal water filter or such other devices, the device even though it is made of metal can not be used for the grounding path (conductor). A jumper must be installed.
If there were no devices such as meters, filters or such devices installed then the metal of the pipe could be the path (conductor) and the jumper required by 250.53(D)(1) would not be required at all.

If there was no electrode present in scenario 1 and the conductor titled 250.52(A)(1) was not installed the bonding required by 250.104(A) could land at any accessible point on the pipe and the requirement to 250.53(D)(1) would not apply.

If the water heater was installed using dielectric unions the removal of the water heater would not be an issue but there still wouldn?t be a code founded requirement to bond across the water heater.
As I have pointed out in earlier post the requirement for the metal water pipe to be electrically continuous has been removed from the NEC.

I will give you credit for you work. Check out the right side of the earth.

 

[George Stolz]

If there was a water heater installed there would have to be a tee for the cold water. If there was no device such as a water meter or filter between conductor titled 250.52(A)(1) and the tee for the cold water then nothing else would be required.

Of what significance is the tee? What does that do for you?

I like Mike Holt’s use of the words “removable device” as this best describes things such as water meters, water filters, softeners and such.

I removed my water heater last year. It is removable without use of a hacksaw. Is it not removable? I too like the term "removable", it would be a good addition to the code.

All that is said in 250.53(D)(1) is that if I have a metal water meter or a metal water filter or such other devices, the device even though it is made of metal can not be used for the grounding path (conductor). A jumper must be installed.

Ahh, but in scenario #4 it requires a jumper in both directions, bonding and grounding.

As I have pointed out in earlier post the requirement for the metal water pipe to be electrically continuous has been removed from the NEC.

True; but there is no distance limit given for the bonding end of 250.53(D)(1). Under scenario #1, we are not given a stopping point for where removable items no longer are a concern for bonding a water pipe.

I do agree that scenario #3 is not limited as far as removable items go; but scenario #1 is. I'm not saying it's rational, I'm saying, "This is how I see the mechanics of these sections of code."

I will give you credit for you work. Check out the right side of the earth.

Thanks, Mike.

 

[Bob NH]

Scenario #2:

In this case, the GEC connection was made closer to the 5' limit imposed on us by 250.52(A)(1). Since the grounding path is through a removable item, we are forced to jumper across the removable item by 250.53(D)(1).
Scenario #4:

In this scenario, where we've landed the GEC is between two removable objects in the piping system. Therefore, 250.53 (we have a grounding electrode again, it's 10' long) will now require a couple of jumpers, a combination of scenarios #1 and #2.

Do you agree with my representations of each scenario?

I think that there may be a problem with landing the GEC on the side away from electrode and connecting it with a jumper. The GEC is required to be continuous to the electrode. You could avoid that by using the uncut GEC as the jumper.

 

[jwelectric]

If there was a water heater installed there would have to be a tee for the cold water. If there was no device such as a water meter or filter between conductor titled 250.52(A)(1) and the tee for the cold water then nothing else would be required.

Of what significance is the tee? What does that do for you?

At the tee would start the cold water piping. The piping itself would be the bonding path for the water pipe bond and there would be no need for any kind of jumper at all.

I like Mike Holt?s use of the words ?removable device? as this best describes things such as water meters, water filters, softeners and such.

I removed my water heater last year. It is removable without use of a hacksaw. Is it not removable? I too like the term "removable", it would be a good addition to the code.

There is a big difference between a water filter, water meter and similar equipment and an appliance such as a water heater. The fact that the water is on the house side of the bonding conductor required by 250.104(A) then there would be no requirement to bond across it in the first place.

All that is said in 250.53(D)(1) is that if I have a metal water meter or a metal water filter or such other devices, the device even though it is made of metal can not be used for the grounding path (conductor). A jumper must be installed.

Ahh, but in scenario #4 it requires a jumper in both directions, bonding and grounding.

Scenario #4 is a violation of 250.64(C) although I have did this in the past as I would guess lots of us have.
If there was no pipe in contact with earth (no electrode) and the conductor labeled 250.52(A)(1) was 250.104(A)(1) then no bonding jumpers would be required at all.

As I have pointed out in earlier post the requirement for the metal water pipe to be electrically continuous has been removed from the NEC.

True; but there is no distance limit given for the bonding end of 250.53(D)(1). Under scenario #1, we are not given a stopping point for where removable items no longer are a concern for bonding a water pipe.

Yes there is a place in the code that tells where this jumper is to end. What is this jumper that is being installed across the device? It is the bonding jumper that is required by 250.104(A)(1). Here we are told that this jumper can land at any accessible point on the piping system. Common sense tells us to keep it as short as possible. Throwing common sense to the wind and wanting to waste money one could run this jumper to the opposite end to the water pipe and still be in compliance.

I do agree that scenario #3 is not limited as far as removable items go; but scenario #1 is. I'm not saying it's rational, I'm saying, "This is how I see the mechanics of these sections of code."

The bonding jumper in scenario 1 is the same bonding jumper that is in scenario 3. The only difference between the two is that in scenario 3 the jumper is ran to the panel and in scenario 1 it is ran to a grounding electrode. The requirements is the same for both scenarios.
The big debate about bonding metal water pipes as in scenario 3 comes from some imagined rule that the water pipe has to be electrically continuous. This simply is not true. There is no requirement to bond around anything found in 250.104(A)(1).

 

[jwelectric]

Here nothing else is required.
In this scenario the water pipe is not part of the electrode system. There is no requirement to bond around anything outlined in 250.104(A)(1) therefore no jumpers are required anywhere on this system.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Mike,

There is no requirement to bond around anything outlined in 250.104(A)(1) therefore no jumpers are required anywhere on this system.

In my opinion, the metal water pipe system(s) have not been bonded per 250.104(A)(1). A jumper or second bonding conductor is required for the hot water piping system if it is isolated from the cold water piping system. The piping between A and B and between B and C may or may not be systems.
Don

 

[jwelectric]

Don
Do you base this opinion of the fact that the water heater breaks continuity of the water pipe?

If so on what code section are you basing the requirement for the water pipe to have continuity on?

I can?t see them as two different systems as the same water flows through the pipes. This water whether hot or cold is used for the same purposes.
The code panel makes a statement in proposal 5-233 Log #2136 NEC-P05 that I sort of liked; ?Isolated sections of metal water piping are covered by 250.104(B). Section 250.104(A) is specifically for ?systems? meaning complete systems consisting all of metal water piping.?

If it is the belief of the code panel that having a short piece of nonmetallic pipe installed anywhere in the metal water system then makes it subject to 250.104(B), how can a water heater be worse?



If I had water that was supplying something such as a water cooler for air conditioning then I could see two different systems. The water is being used for two separate functions.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Mike,
It is my opinion that a water piping system serves more than one device and that each nonmetallic device is the end of one metal water piping system and the start of a new metal water piping system and that all metal water piping systems that are present require bonding.
Don

I do see that CMP 5 does not agree in the panel statement to proposal 5-233. I guess that is a good sign as it is the first step towards using the wording in 104(B) for all metal piping. There is no good reason that the water pipe requires a 250.66 bonding jumper and other piping requires a 250.122 jumper. The one problem is the bonding of "other piping systems" is a judgement call based on the "likely to become energized" wording where as the water piping sytem requires bonding even when it is not likely to become energized.

 

[iwire]

Mike,
It is my opinion that a water piping system serves more than one device and that each nonmetallic device is the end of one metal water piping system and the start of a new metal water piping system and that all metal water piping systems that are present require bonding.
Don

Cool and that sounds familiar.

Posted 12-30-2006, 05:35 PM here in the Bonding Copper Stubs for Plastic Piping thread.

How about this?

A Metal water piping system is always electrically continuous.....it's metal.

If a metal water piping system is interrupted by something that is not conductive, that non conductive point is the end of that particular metal water piping system.

Beyond that non-conductive portion another metal water piping system may begin.

Both of those systems are required to be bonded.

IMO the real rub is what separates a 'stub' from a 'system'.

I will stick my neck out and say a system must supply more than one item and a stub only serves one item.

 

[George Stolz]

I think that there may be a problem with landing the GEC on the side away from electrode and connecting it with a jumper. The GEC is required to be continuous to the electrode.

I disagree. The GEC is continuous to the electrode. It is continuous from the service to the pipe, and lands within the first five feet of the water pipe, that's all that's required of the GEC.

If a jumper is installed, then we've complied with 250.53(D)(1) as well.

 

[George Stolz]

At the tee would start the cold water piping. The piping itself would be the bonding path for the water pipe bond and there would be no need for any kind of jumper at all.

I don't see how you're coming to this conclusion based on the words given.

There is a big difference between a water filter, water meter and similar equipment and an appliance such as a water heater.

Can you define it?

Scenario #4 is a violation of 250.64(C)...

How so?

If there was no pipe in contact with earth (no electrode) and the conductor labeled 250.52(A)(1) was 250.104(A)(1) then no bonding jumpers would be required at all.

Mike, you and I completely (100%) agree on Scenario #3. We can put it away, we're done with it. We're disagreeing on the other ones.

Yes there is a place in the code that tells where this jumper is to end. What is this jumper that is being installed across the device? It is the bonding jumper that is required by 250.104(A)(1). Here we are told that this jumper can land at any accessible point on the piping system.

The bonding conductor in 250.104(A)(1) is very lazy. We can sleepwalk through complying with that section.

It's cousin in 250.53(D)(1) is a tyrant. This is the section that does not have a stop sign.

250.104 is saying, "bring a conductor to any point." Easy.
250.53 is saying, "preserve the path in both directions from the GEC without fail." Hard.

Can you see it?

 

[jwelectric]

250.53 is saying, "preserve the path in both directions from the GEC without fail." Hard. Can you see it?

I think that you are wanting so hard to justify the bonding across a water heater that you can?t see the wording found in 53(D)(1). If there are no ?removable devices? there is no need for the bonding jumper if the first place.

Try thinking of it like scenario 3. The jumper connects the water pipe to the electrode instead of the panel is the only difference between the two. 53(D)(!) does not even come into play unless it is being bonded back to the water pipe electrode.

If in scenario 3 instead of running back to the panel the bonding jumper is connected to the CEE it would be the same.

To say that the water heater is a removable piece of equipment would equate to a section of the pipe being removed.
It is the continued questions about a piece of non metallic pipe being used to repair metal water pipes that has spurred so many responses from the Code Panel such as this:
Panel Statement: The requirements of 250.104(A) apply to complete metallic water piping systems. Where there is no complete metallic water piping system, then the requirements of 250.104(B) would apply for those portions of isolated metal water piping system likely to become energized.
I take this to mean that if there was one piece of nonmetallic pipe installed that is no more than ? inch long then the requirements of 250.104(A) would no longer apply.

Side note; I just picked the first statement I saw in all of the proposals found in the 2005 ROPs for 250.104(A). There are several of them.

 

[mattsilkwood]

ok here is my take on it. you should bond at the water heater because this presents,under normal conditions,a path to ground all the way around the system regardless if you have removed any one piece of the system.

the chances of not doing this being a real live safety issue are one in a million
which is pretty slim but just think of the last time you bought a lotto ticket(those chances are ALOT slimmer) and this could be someones life. so take ten minutes out of your busy day and maybe sleep a little better.