plumbers cutting into copper lines and installing pex

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

redwood1957

Member
Now plumbers are cutting into copper lines and running pex tubing who or is anyone required to bond the old copper that is fed with pex? Its like running metal conduit and switching over to pvc with out providing a ground
 
If their is 10 ft or more of metal pipe in the ground. You are suppose to use it as a grounding electrode. Even if it is cut off when it comes in the building, and the whole place is plastic water pipe.
IMO It works much better then an 8 ft. ground rod.
 
redwood1957 said:
Now plumbers are cutting into copper lines and running pex tubing who or is anyone required to bond the old copper that is fed with pex? Its like running metal conduit and switching over to pvc with out providing a ground
Click to expand...

I've seen quite a few houses where this has happened.
The existing (underground) metal water line was used as the Grounding Electrode (GE) and the all metal plumbing was bonded by default.

Along comes a plumber and replaces the underground portion with plastic and un-knowingly eliminates the GE.
If he cuts the metal line before the connection to the Grounding Electrode Conductor (GEC), the interior plumbing remains bonded to the service, but the house doesn't have a Grounding Electrode anymore.
If he cuts the line after the GEC, he removes the GEC connection and the house has neither a GE or a water bond.

Who's to blame?
IMO...The plumber...he should know about this if he's qualified.

What to do?
Ideally....The plumber should call a electrician to install a Grounding electrode system and bond the plumbing.

Most times (in my experience) nothing will be done after the plumber leaves and the house will remain without a GE until something bad happens or a electrician spots the problem, usually during a service call.

As long as the Grounded Service Conductor remains intact, the "problem" may never be discovered and corrected.

Just my opinion
steve
 
There was quite a discussion on this subject,.... Click here ,..Mr Whitt makes quite an argument and backs it up quite nicely. I think he summed it up nicely in this post..

jwelectric said:
I didn?t start saving the ROPs until the 2002 cycle. I wish I could get my hands on them all.

This topic is one of my favorite to debate as there is no clear verbiage that mandates that a metal water pipe be made electrically continuous.
As Bob (iwire) pointed out there are some who believe that there could be different systems contained in the same system.
The problem I see with this thinking is; any piece of metal pipe would become a system in and of itself making it a requirement to bond the short stubs.

The way I read and interpret article 250 is there is only one case where the metal water pipe is required to be make electrically continuous and that is found in 250.53(D)(1). Here the only part of the metal water pipe that is required to be made electrically continuous is that part where the bonding jumpers and electrode conductor are terminated to earth.

During the same cycles of the NEC where it was required that the metal water system be continuous a three wire receptacle could be replaced and the EGC ran to the nearest water pipe. The same year that the words ?made electrically continuous? were removed from 250-80 the relief to run the EGC form a three wire receptacle was removed from 250.50(b) Exception. Allowing the EGC from a replacement receptacle to land on the water pipe was removed in 1993. 250-50(b) Exception is 250.130 in the 2005 cycle. If it was still the intent for the metal water pipe to be electrically continuous there would have been no need to remove the wording from 250.50(b) Exception and this would still be allowed in 250.130 today.

Based on these findings and the language found in 250.53(D)(1) and 250.104(A)(1) I can?t help but to believe that it is no longer the intent that the metal water pipe be electrically continuous.
Click to expand...

__________________
 
hillbilly said:
Along comes a plumber and replaces the underground portion with plastic and un-knowingly eliminates the GE.
If he cuts the metal line before the connection to the Grounding Electrode Conductor (GEC), the interior plumbing remains bonded to the service, but the house doesn't have a Grounding Electrode anymore.

Who's to blame?
Click to expand...
The original electrician, if he never installed a supplemental electrode.
 
hillbilly said:
Along comes a plumber and replaces the underground portion with plastic and un-knowingly eliminates the GE.
If he cuts the metal line before the connection to the Grounding Electrode Conductor (GEC), the interior plumbing remains bonded to the service, but the house doesn't have a Grounding Electrode anymore.

Who's to blame?
Click to expand...

LarryFine said:
The original electrician, if he never installed a supplemental electrode.
Click to expand...

Grandfathered old services and special "home owner installs" are more common than you can wave a lawer at. Some old services should be completely removed as community safety hazards, but which ones....where...who pays....

Not everyone (plumbers, homeowners, hacks...) knows the dangers of the oderless, tasteless and invisible monster we try to eliminate through skilled craftsmenship, personal pride and due diligence.

Arm yourselves with wisdom of others instead of assuming you're "the master of electricity".
 
The UPC and not sure about the IPC, required a label on the meter if the metal water line had been replaced with plastic.
 
TwinCitySparky said:
If there is any possibility that the copper could become energized, then I'd bond it.
Click to expand...

Then you would be going above and beyond what is required.
The NEC requires bonding only if it is probable that the copper will be energized.

If we have to bond every metallic item that possibly could become energized, we would have to bond the nails used for hanging pictures. After all, they must have the possibility of becoming energized, otherwise we would not need to use "nail plates".
 
jim dungar said:
If we have to bond every metallic item that possibly could become energized, we would have to bond the nails used for hanging pictures. After all, they must have the possibility of becoming energized, otherwise we would not need to use "nail plates".
Click to expand...
You don't have to bond the nails if they're supplied through GFCI devices.
 
jim dungar said:
Then you would be going above and beyond what is required.
The NEC requires bonding only if it is probable that the copper will be energized.
Click to expand...

Well I guess I'm glad I'm not being accused of going below and falling short.
;)

- I was thinking of the typical "handyman special" basements that I often get sent into where the plumbing looks to be the basic support system of all the romex - and they had the pex entry changeover...
 
TwinCitySparky said:
Well I guess I'm glad I'm not being accused of going below and falling short.
;)

- I was thinking of the typical "handyman special" basements that I often get sent into where the plumbing looks to be the basic support system of all the romex - and they had the pex entry changeover...
Click to expand...

Are you saying the plumbing that is supporting all the romex is likely to become energized just because it is supporting the romex?

If so could you explain to me how it is to do this.
 
Sure.

Again... Imagine the typical Joe homeowner basement where many DIY types or "handypeople" have ran plumbing thru (and mostly below) the floor trusses, supporting it with nail on hangers etc. Take lots of romex and pull it through (above and below) that whole mess in a spagetti like fashion. Then, take a metal supported pop in ceiling tile system and CRAM whatever wont fit on top of that. Finally add some non-stop energetic kids to the mix for some endless artificial sizemic activety.

Sharp edges/romex and jarring motions. Not a good mix. :cool: I've seen damages romex many times in these situations.

That is why I use the standard code methods of support - i.e. conduit, bored holes, straps.

Take a few feet of copper (if po$$ible) and bond the whole mess (if not already bonded). Explain it to the customer. They appreciate your above and beyond concern. They know you are looking out for their safety, they call you back next time. Happy customers...

No bid deal. :rolleyes:
 
TwinCitySparky said:
Sure.
Click to expand...
TwinCitySparky said:

Again... Imagine the typical Joe homeowner basement where many DIY types or "handypeople" have ran plumbing thru (and mostly below) the floor trusses, supporting it with nail on hangers etc. Take lots of romex and pull it through (above and below) that whole mess in a spagetti like fashion. Then, take a metal supported pop in ceiling tile system and CRAM whatever wont fit on top of that. Finally add some non-stop energetic kids to the mix for some endless artificial sizemic activety.

Sharp edges/romex and jarring motions. Not a good mix. I've seen damages romex many times in these situations.

That is why I use the standard code methods of support - i.e. conduit, bored holes, straps.

Take a few feet of copper (if po$$ible) and bond the whole mess (if not already bonded). Explain it to the customer. They appreciate your above and beyond concern. They know you are looking out for their safety, they call you back next time. Happy customers...

No bid deal.
Click to expand...



So when you saw all this damage to ?romex? was the purpose of your call due to the metal water pipes being energized?
It couldn?t have been due to the breaker tripping or fuse blowing if the pipe wasn?t bonded in the first place.

Did this same basement have metal duck work installed? Was this metal duck work also bonded before you left?
 
Did this same basement have metal duck work installed? Was this metal duck work also bonded before you left?

I don't neccessarilly have an opinion about bonding duct work, but I am compelled to share the following story:

Went on a service call because the HVAC guy was getting shocked by the duct work. He was working on the AHU and every time he touched the duct work he got zapped. He refused to work on the system. Smart man!

I noticed that there was a flex collar(for vibration/noise) between the AHU and the SA duct. I placed my meter across the flex fitting and got >100volts. Apparently this guy got shocked several times before he had enough.

Isolated the branch ckts until the duct work became deenergized. Found an extension cord above the drop ceiling snagged on the duct work. Appeared to have been there quite a while.

Fortunately, the guy wasn't found fried inside of the AHU.

Just food for thought.
 
R Bob said:
Fortunately, the guy wasn't found fried inside of the AHU.

Just food for thought.
Click to expand...
Fried? Food? Good pun.

Besides, frying requires a skillet; inside the AHU would result in baking, like in an oven. :grin:
 
in my house the only grounding electrode i have is the water pipe. no ground rods or anything. only ground rod i have is one i felt like installing for my generator. in reality i just installed that so i could try out my new hammer drill ground rod attachment :)

the house was like that when it was bought
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top