NG Bonding Question.

[roger]

Thank you sir. Is that wording in the NEC anywhere?

Actually it is, but worded a little differently.

From 250.104 (B)

(B) Other Metal Piping. If installed in, or attached to, a
building or structure, a metal piping system(s), including
gas piping, that is likely to become energized shall be
bonded to the service equipment enclosure; the grounded
conductor at the service; the grounding electrode conductor,
if of sufficient size; or to one or more grounding electrodes
used. The bonding conductor(s) or jumper(s) shall be
sized in accordance with 250.122, using the rating of the
circuit that is likely to energize the piping system(s). The
equipment grounding conductor for the circuit that is likely
to energize the piping shall be permitted to serve as the
bonding means. The points of attachment of the bonding
jumper(s) shall be accessible.

 

[kwired]

I agree and the use of the word likely is just incorrect. They should say that if it could become energized then there is no argument. Likely means that it probably will happen and truth is it most likely won't.

But saying if it could become energized leaves the door wide open to include all sorts of things, even things that are pretty unlikely to become energized.

 

[WCEI]

No but depending on your state, the IBC typically takes precedent over all over codes including the NEC. Residentially my code path typically goes IBC -> IRC -> NEC

So are we bonding it because it's gas piping in residential or are we bonding it because it's connected to electrical equipment?

I would point to the CSST bonding requirements that we get from the IRC also. I dont recall seeing any bonding requirements in the NEC for CSST.

So of course it would still come down to the AHJs interpretation

In VA, the State Code includes via adoption, the IBC, and the IRC. The NEC is adopted via reference from the IBC. Don’t quote me on this, but I think I’m correct.

 

[WCEI]

Actually it is, but worded a little differently.

From 250.104 (B)

Would you agree that if the 4/0 SER is the only conductor within arms reach of the gas piping, then you bond for 200 amps?

I used the term “arms length” randomly, but it begs the question, how close constitutes close enough to likely energize the piping?

 

[roger]

Would you agree that if the 4/0 SER is the only conductor within arms reach of the gas piping, then you bond for 200 amps?

What is the gas piping connecting to as far as it's equipment?

 

[WCEI]

What is the gas piping connecting to as far as it's equipment?

I’m just talking theoretically. But for the sake of discussion, let’s say it’s feeding a gas furnace with a 120 volt/ 15amp branch circuit.

 

[roger]

I’m just talking theoretically. But for the sake of discussion, let’s say it’s feeding a gas furnace with a 120 volt/ 15amp branch circuit.

Then the 120V 15 amp circuit is the circuit likely to be an issue and the #14 EGC is all that's needed. A wire or cable passing, be it arms length or closer is not an issue, if it was there would be more issues with it than worrying about bonding a pipe. Think about SER exposed on a building, would people being able to come in contact with it be a problem?

 

[WCEI]

Then the 120V 15 amp circuit is the circuit likely to be an issue and the #14 EGC is all that's needed. A wire or cable passing, be it arms length or closer is not an issue, if it was there would be more issues with it than worrying about bonding a pipe. Think about SER exposed on a building, would people being able to come in contact with it be a problem?

View attachment 2564249

Then it goes back to the discussion above. What is “likely to become energized?” Pure judgement call? You could take your stance and say it would take an abnormal situation with the SER to ever present a problem of energizing the gas pipe. Or, some would argue that it “likely” could energize the pipe if a strap or two came lose and the wire chaffed on the gas pipe from normal vibrations and movement.

I agree with you. The “most” likely means that the pipe could become energized would be the furnace branch circuit. But, we get back yo what does “likely” mean in the context of code enforcement?

 

[roger]

Then it goes back to the discussion above. What is “likely to become energized?” Pure judgement call? You could take your stance and say it would take an abnormal situation with the SER to ever present a problem of energizing the gas pipe. Or, some would argue that it “likely” could energize the pipe if a strap or two came lose and the wire chaffed on the gas pipe from normal vibrations and movement.

I agree with you. The “most” likely means that the pipe could become energized would be the furnace branch circuit. But, we get back yo what does “likely” mean in the context of code enforcement?

"Abnormal situations" are like "what if's", there are perfect situations where you may be killed from a bowling ball rolling out of a bowling alley, down a road to an overpass, then off the overpass to the road below and bouncing into your windsheild.

I agree that the wording is lame and in this case an electrician could be at the mercy of some clueless "sky is falling" type of inspector.

 

[LarryFine]

I think "likely" refers to the supplied appliance itself, and not to a relative likelihood.

 

[WCEI]

I think "likely" refers to the supplied appliance itself, and not to a relative likelihood.

I agree. Have you ever seen it explained as such in any official manner? Like Roger above was eluding to, “likely” obviously was not meant to be any and every possible eventuality.

Hey Larry, is Jim Stallcup still around? I had the pleasure of enjoying lunch with him in Richmond one time when he was passing through?

 

[LarryFine]

I agree. Have you ever seen it explained as such in any official manner? Like Roger above was eluding to, “likely” obviously was not meant to be any and every possible eventuality.

No, because it's never come up on any of my work. The inspectors around here are reasonable.

Hey Larry, is Jim Stallcup still around? I had the pleasure of enjoying lunch with him in Richmond one time when he was passing through?

Hey, Wayne. I've thought of contacting you because we're close.

The name is vaguely familiar, but I don't know why.

 

[WCEI]

No, because it's never come up on any of my work. The inspectors around here are reasonable.


Hey, Wayne. I've thought of contacting you because we're close.

The name is vaguely familiar, but I don't know why.

You have probably seen my face on milk cartons and in the post office Larry!

I guess we may have crossed paths at some point. Maybe at a supply house or something like that, although, most of my business has been with the supply houses down toward Colonial Heights. I’ve taught a few code update CE classes in affiliation with Tristate, Hagemyer, Capital, Mayer, and the old Eck Supply over the years. I taught a few up in Richmond, but mostly down my way. I have a strong affiliation with Brightpoint CC, (John Tyler), and years ago was adjunct down at Southside CC in Alberta. You may just have seen my trucks. As much gas as I buy, I think they make three laps around the state every day. I’m waiting for a Saudi Prince to invite me over for a visit. Good grief!!!

I incorporated the business into my name in 1997, I ran it for 10 years before that, and worked for it since 1973. But, all this means is that I’m old as crap. I’ve just been around a long time Larry, so I’m sure we have met somewhere.

 

[Steve16]

If were concerned that a gas pipe 5' from an SEU is likely to become energized (eyeroll) are we going to start bonding hvac duct work in addition to the circuit feeding the appliance? What about the steel beam in my house that the SER is routed over heading to my sub panel?

 

[electrofelon]

What about the steel beam in my house that the SER is routed over heading to my sub panel?

Bus full of nuns dude........Many cute kittens die too....

 

[retirede]

“Likely” means probable…to quantify that, I’d say it means more than 50% chance. IMO there are zero installations done per code where a gas pipe is likely to be energized.

 

[kwired]

Would you agree that if the 4/0 SER is the only conductor within arms reach of the gas piping, then you bond for 200 amps?

I used the term “arms length” randomly, but it begs the question, how close constitutes close enough to likely energize the piping?

I think if you ran gas pipe and the cable parallel to each other with only an inch of spacing and had both well secured the likelihood of energizing the pipe is pretty low without some other intervention going on, like say a vehicle crashing into a house or remodelers getting carried away with Sawzall.

 

[retirede]

I think if you ran gas pipe and the cable parallel to each other with only an inch of spacing and had both well secured the likelihood of energizing the pipe is pretty low without some other intervention going on, like say a vehicle crashing into a house or remodelers getting carried away with Sawzall.

I think if the cable was lashed to the pipe with zip ties, the likelihood of the pipe being energized is still very low.

 

[kwired]

I think if the cable was lashed to the pipe with zip ties, the likelihood of the pipe being energized is still very low.

Higher chance than my scenario but yes still pretty low.

 

[Mt61]

The CSST manufacturers have improved their products and most state their products are bonded by the appliance the same as black iron Or galvanized piping. ( however if you want to appease an inspector, run a # 4 from where piping enters the structure to the GEC)