plumbing fitting not listed as ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
jxofaltrds said:
The Electrical Inspector must pass the inspection. Since the fittings "?Meet UPC, IPC and cUPC requirements." it would go to the AHJ to decide where if any 'jumpers' would be required.

I have some SharkBites around. I'll have to look at them and see what I think about the electrical continuity.
Click to expand...

jxofaltrds said:
PS This is what the AHJ would be looking at:

114.1 Approved materials, products, assemblies and methods of construction.

Materials, products, assemblies and methods of construction approved by the building official shall be constructed and installed in accordance with such approval. Materials, devices, products and assemblies listed in directories indicated in Table 114.3 are authorized for use when:


1. Approved by the building official;
2. Installed/used in accordance with the listing;
3. The listing is current; and,
4. The extent of the listing does not include in its scope, elements of design, construction or installation otherwise in conflict with the provisions of this code such as fire-resistance, structural design, etc.
Click to expand...
But you are describing an electrical inspector determining whether a plumbing piping system is suitable for the application. Not his jurisdiction unless he is also the plumbing inspector but still not under the electrical part of his title. As an electrical inspector he should only be determining if this is a metal piping system or not. If it is a metal piping system then insulating fittings need bonding to ensure the continuity of the system.

What if this were just the opposite - all non metallic piping with metallic fittings? That does happen with some PEX piping systems.
 
kwired said:
But you are describing an electrical inspector determining whether a plumbing piping system is suitable for the application. Not his jurisdiction unless he is also the plumbing inspector but still not under the electrical part of his title. As an electrical inspector he should only be determining if this is a metal piping system or not. If it is a metal piping system then insulating fittings need bonding to ensure the continuity of the system.

What if this were just the opposite - all non metallic piping with metallic fittings? That does happen with some PEX piping systems.
Click to expand...

No I said the AHJ not the EI. So we agree.
 
jxofaltrds said:
I conceded that earlier but since it has been brought up again please show me where this is the true reason for the rule! :angel:
Click to expand...
Any equipment grounding conductor that does become bonded to the water piping will be a place for introducing current, on the interior piping.
 
edward said:
I agree we bond water pipes. But if the couplings in question are used then the whole piping system is not bonded only the portion where we (the electrician) has installed the bonding wire or the GEC. Do you as an inspector require bonding jumper between each pipe bypassing the coupling?
Click to expand...

IMO that would be ridiculous.
 
jxofaltrds said:
Say what? Better not or you have a wiring problem.
Click to expand...

Current will take all available paths, paths of lower resistance will carry more of the current - I'm pretty sure you already know this. If you have a grounding electrode conductor connected near the water entrance and an equipment grounding conductor tied to same electrically continuous water piping at the farthest point from water entrance and both conductors originate at electrical service equipment why wouldn't current be flowing in the water piping? The GEC should have less resistance and carry the bulk of the current but some will flow in every conductive path that exists.
 
kwired said:
Current will take all available paths, paths of lower resistance will carry more of the current - I'm pretty sure you already know this. If you have a grounding electrode conductor connected near the water entrance and an equipment grounding conductor tied to same electrically continuous water piping at the farthest point from water entrance and both conductors originate at electrical service equipment why wouldn't current be flowing in the water piping? The GEC should have less resistance and carry the bulk of the current but some will flow in every conductive path that exists.
Click to expand...

Maybe I do not understand! I thought EGCs were not current carrying conductors.
 
I am not sure that I understand this thread. Are some of you trying to say that it is the responsibility of the electrical contractor to ensure that water piping systems have electrical continuity?

In the 1975 edition metal pipes were required to be electrically continuous
1975250-80.jpg


But all this had changed by 1984 and has never appeared in any cycle from that date

1984250-80.jpg


Where is all this bonding mentioned in any of the past few code cycles to be found?
 
jwelectric said:
I am not sure that I understand this thread. Are some of you trying to say that it is the responsibility of the electrical contractor to ensure that water piping systems have electrical continuity?

In the 1975 edition metal pipes were required to be electrically continuous
1975250-80.jpg


But all this had changed by 1984 and has never appeared in any cycle from that date

1984250-80.jpg


Where is all this bonding mentioned in any of the past few code cycles to be found?
Click to expand...

Because "The" means "all".

It does not say part of or the first xx'. It says "The".

If I said the sky is pretty do I mean just part of it or all of it. If I meant part I would have said the sky looks pretty over there!
 
PS it is the plumbers' responsiblity to make it continuous and the electricians' to bond it.

If the plumbing inspector needs to go to a class to understand this then so be it. Plumbing, electric, HVAC and structural are under the code and it is every trades responsibilty to know how that affects their trade!!!!!
 
jxofaltrds said:
Maybe I do not understand! I thought EGCs were not current carrying conductors.
Click to expand...

They are not. But tell me the EGC in the following image will not carry same current that may be imposed on the GEC - they are both connected to neutral bus in service equipment and both connected to interior metal water piping - no way to avoid potential current flowing on the EGC if the water piping is electrically continuous.

Red lines represent a possible current that may be flowing, and this current would be deemed normal, it can and does happen.

GECEGCparallelcurrent.jpg
 
GECEGCparallelcurrent.jpg


Lets go a little deeper into things, lets say the service neutral to house number one opens for some reason, now all the neutral current from house #1 will divide (proportional to path resistances) between the GEC and the EGC to the appliance and through interior piping and will combine again at the GEC connection near the water service entrance - flow through underground metal piping to house #2 and through GEC in house #2 to service neutral to transformer terminal. No one will ever know the neutral in house #1 ever developed an open circuit as things will still operate fairly close to normal conditions, maybe a little more voltage drop in the modified neutral path, but not enough to be too obvious.

If you run two conductors out from same point and put another conductive path between them you will get current flowing in all elements of the circuit if there is going to be current flow, GEC's do have current on them and is considered normal for them to have current flowing on them.
 
kwired said:
They are not. But tell me the EGC in the following image will not carry same current that may be imposed on the GEC - they are both connected to neutral bus in service equipment and both connected to interior metal water piping - no way to avoid potential current flowing on the EGC if the water piping is electrically continuous.

Red lines represent a possible current that may be flowing, and this current would be deemed normal, it can and does happen.

GECEGCparallelcurrent.jpg
Click to expand...

Anything is possible. We are talking about 'normal' conditions.

waterheater.JPG
 
jxofaltrds said:
Anything is possible. We are talking about 'normal' conditions.

View attachment 7491
Click to expand...

What is abnormal about the drawing? - it is a code compliant installation, and happens all the time.

The water pipe is required to be bonded, and used for grounding electrode if it is a qualifying electrode. The appliance that is connected to electrical supply is required to have an equipment grounding conductor run to it. There is a bond between this EGC and the water pipe - naturally happens quite often.

As a result the EGC in question is in parallel to the GEC.

If there is current on the GEC, which is normal to happen, then there will also be current on the EGC because they are in parallel to each other. That current is typically at a pretty low level, but is there. Now with a continuous metallic water pipe to the neighbors house like what can happen in cities, you have a pretty low resistance through the grounding electrode and will likely have almost as much current on the GEC as you have on the service neutral - this does happen and is still code compliant.
 
jxofaltrds said:
Because "The" means "all".

It does not say part of or the first xx'. It says "The".

If I said the sky is pretty do I mean just part of it or all of it. If I meant part I would have said the sky looks pretty over there!
Click to expand...

Let?s look at what it does say
250.104 Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel.
(A) Metal Water Piping. The metal water piping system shall be bonded as required in (A)(1), (A)(2), or (A)(3) of this section. The bonding jumper(s) shall be installed in accordance with 250.64(A), (B), and (E). The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be accessible.
(1) General. Metal water piping system(s) installed in or attached to a building or structure shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or to the one or more grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance with Table 250.66 except as permitted in 250.104(A)(2) and (A)(3).


Where does it say that the metal pipes are required to be electrically continuous? I can?t see it anywhere. Am I looking at the wrong section?

What I see is that any bonding jumper installed must land either on the service enclosure, the neutral, an electrode conductor, or an electrode. So to land the bonding jumper back to another pipe would be a violation of 250.4(A)(1).

Maybe the part of the sky you are looking at is pretty but the sky that someone else is looking at may be cloudy unless you think that the entire sky is only the part you can see such as some are looking at bonding of metal water piping systems.

Many times on this forum the proposal has been posted where the code panel says that unless it is a complete metal piping system it does not require a 250.66 bonding conductor. If these fittings do not make the pipe electrically continuous then forget the 250.66 bond.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top