plumbing fitting not listed as ...

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

?250.4 (5) Effective Ground-Fault Current Path. Electrical equipment and wiring and other electrically conductive material likely to become energized shall be installed in a manner that creates a low-impedance circuit facilitating the operation of the overcurrent device or ground detector for high-impedance grounded systems. It shall be capable of safely carrying the maximum ground-fault current likely to be imposed on it from any point on the wiring system where a ground fault may occur to the electrical supply source. The earth shall not be considered as an effective ground-fault current path.?3

Nice article here:

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/2011/07/over-code-the-anatomy-of-a-code-change-proposal/

I love the jumping of Water Conditioning Equipment.

I do not see the need for a code change.

(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification
or an instruction manual for untrained persons.
 
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!

The word ?the? is an article just as ?a? and ?an? and will in most cases be in front of a noun such as asking someone to come into ?the? house. We don?t mean for them to come in and walk through the entire house. What we are saying is for them to come from the outside to the inside.
?The? and ?a/an? are called "articles".

All can be an adverb, adjective, or a noun depending on how it is used in a sentence.
Used as an adverb, ?You?ve got it all wrong.?
Used as an adjective, ?all the cake?
Used as a noun, ?He gave his all, and collapsed at the finish line?

I don?t see the word ?the? found in 250.4 meaning ?all?
If by some weird chance that it did mean ?all? then the entire section would be required to be adhered to such as each bonding jumper landing somewhere other than across a fitting.

Looking at that section can you tell me where each bonding jumper is required to land? I am having a hard time finding the part where it says that a bonding jumper is allowed to run from the pipe to the pipe.

I will not argue should someone say that the use of a fitting that breaks the continuity of the water pipe would require that that isolated part of the pipe must be bonded back to the service but until someone can show me where a pipe is to be bonded back to a pipe then I say they are grasping for straws and trying to invent code verbiage.

This is like the bonding of cold to hot. This is not a code requirement. If someone is going to call this two different potable water systems then both systems must be bonded to those items outlined in 250.104(A)(1) not to each other.

Once again I ask for the verbiage used to require that these fittings are to be bonded across.
 
The word ?the? is an article just as ?a? and ?an? and will in most cases be in front of a noun such as asking someone to come into ?the? house. We don?t mean for them to come in and walk through the entire house. What we are saying is for them to come from the outside to the inside.
?The? and ?a/an? are called "articles".

All can be an adverb, adjective, or a noun depending on how it is used in a sentence.
Used as an adverb, ?You?ve got it all wrong.?
Used as an adjective, ?all the cake?
Used as a noun, ?He gave his all, and collapsed at the finish line?

I don?t see the word ?the? found in 250.4 meaning ?all?
If by some weird chance that it did mean ?all? then the entire section would be required to be adhered to such as each bonding jumper landing somewhere other than across a fitting.

Looking at that section can you tell me where each bonding jumper is required to land? I am having a hard time finding the part where it says that a bonding jumper is allowed to run from the pipe to the pipe.

I will not argue should someone say that the use of a fitting that breaks the continuity of the water pipe would require that that isolated part of the pipe must be bonded back to the service but until someone can show me where a pipe is to be bonded back to a pipe then I say they are grasping for straws and trying to invent code verbiage.

This is like the bonding of cold to hot. This is not a code requirement. If someone is going to call this two different potable water systems then both systems must be bonded to those items outlined in 250.104(A)(1) not to each other.

Once again I ask for the verbiage used to require that these fittings are to be bonded across.

I agree that it is not perfectly clear. I believe that it is understood that we bond the metal water lines for safety.

I also believe that we do not need to be told that isolating sections of pipe decreases safety. Not unsafe but decreases safety.

If my whole house was copper, let us say 200' of it, can I install a water softener 10' in and isolate the remaining 190' of piping? NO.

What is your opinion of the article that I included above?
 

Here is another nice read straight from those to which the section is composed.

5-236 Log #2432 NEC-P05
Final Action: Reject

(250.104(A)(1))

____________________________________________________________

Submitter:
Robert P. McGann, City of Cambridge

Recommendation:
Revise text to read as follows:

Metal water piping system(s) that is likely to be energized , installed in or attached to a building or structure shall be bonded.

Substantiation:
With much expanded use of plastic water piping system(s) isolating section of metal piping systems. This type of installation leave
contractors and inspectors what is required to be bonded.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

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.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15

Ballot Results:
Affirmative: 15
 
Here is another nice read straight from those to which the section is composed.

5-236 Log #2432 NEC-P05
Final Action: Reject

(250.104(A)(1))

____________________________________________________________

Submitter:
Robert P. McGann, City of Cambridge

Recommendation:
Revise text to read as follows:

Metal water piping system(s) that is likely to be energized , installed in or attached to a building or structure shall be bonded.

Substantiation:
With much expanded use of plastic water piping system(s) isolating section of metal piping systems. This type of installation leave
contractors and inspectors what is required to be bonded.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

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.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15

Ballot Results:
Affirmative: 15

OK. So I install a sub meter for my sprinkler system and I no longer have a complete metal water line system.

That does not fly here in Central Ohio.

So if I built a pool but put no water in it I would not have to bond it either! It is not a complete system. Just a hole in the ground.
 
What is your opinion of the article that I included above?

I think that it supports my opinion completely that unless it is a complete metal piping system then it is nothing short of ignorance that someone would want to bond a piping system based on Table 250.66.

The pictures used in that article was work done by someone other than the authors of that article and the authors had nothing to do with the bonding but they address how stupid it is to use a 3/0 copper conductor to bond ? inch copper tubing when a #8 is all that is required to bond bodies of water such as swimming pools.

For reasons that I can?t comprehend it seems that some folks think that fault current is supposed to be flowing on metal water pipes.
I don?t know how many times over my 44 years of being an electrician I have asked the question, ?If the interior water pipes of a building are metal and no metal underground metal pipes are installed then just what is supposed to energize these pipes that would require such a large bonding jumper?? I still await an answer that has foundation.

Take a home that has a gas water heater, is the service of that home supposed to somehow energize these pipes?

In the diagram posted in this thread wouldn?t the EGC of the circuit supplying the water heater open the overcurrent device before all that current flowed all over those pipes? Just how long would it take the EGC of that circuit to open the overcurrent device? I bet it would real quick with or without the bonding conductor of such an enormous size such as based on Table 250.66.

Over the past few years (12 plus) that I have been an instructor of electrical inspectors here in good ole NC I have learned that in most cases inspectors try to find something they can turn down a job instead of just inspecting what is in front of them. They will pick a code section apart and inject other code sections into what they are trying to prove instead of using the complete code section in question.

250.104(A)(1) is clear in that the bonding jumper where it hits a metal water pipe must be accessible and the other end has four places that it can land. Nowhere in that section does it say that one can hit a pipe somewhere in the system and the other end hit another pipe unless the other pipe is part of the grounding electrode system. Anything other than this is injected opinion and not code verbiage.

The requirement that metal pipes of a building to be electrically continuous was removed from the code simply because the NEC does not address the installation of anything other than the electrical system. The plumbing codes are separate from the electrical code and neither code prohibits the repair of a metal water pipe with a non-metallic repair.
 
OK. So I install a sub meter for my sprinkler system and I no longer have a complete metal water line system.
What was it you said about needing to know other codes? I don?t think that the sprinkler system is allowed to be used as an electrode so what does the meter play in this discussion?

That does not fly here in Central Ohio.
Are we talking about Ohio or are we talking about the NEC?

So if I built a pool but put no water in it I would not have to bond it either! It is not a complete system. Just a hole in the ground.
This is correct it is just a hole in the ground until water is in it.
Pool. Manufactured or field-constructed equipment designed to contain water on a permanent or semipermanent basis and used for swimming, wading, immersion, or therapeutic purposes.

Wouldn?t fit the definition until water was installed. But what does this have to do with bonding of metal water pipes?
 
What was it you said about needing to know other codes? I don?t think that the sprinkler system is allowed to be used as an electrode so what does the meter play in this discussion?

Are we talking about Ohio or are we talking about the NEC?

This is correct it is just a hole in the ground until water is in it.
Pool. Manufactured or field-constructed equipment designed to contain water on a permanent or semipermanent basis and used for swimming, wading, immersion, or therapeutic purposes.

Wouldn?t fit the definition until water was installed. But what does this have to do with bonding of metal water pipes?

Forget about the water heater (hot/cold systems), we will never agree on that.

What is your opinion of this: (ICC based residential)

115.6 Replacement and repairs to systems, components and materials.

Replacement of building components and repairs to existing systems and materials or building components not otherwise provided for in this section shall not be required to meet the provisions for new construction, provided such work is done in accordance with the conditions of the existing approval in the same manner and arrangement as was in the existing system, is not less safe than when originally installed and is approved.

Say the plumber isolates part of the system. Since the NEC is silent on this would you use 90.4 and require a bond using #6 copper? Would you do nothing?

(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered
necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and
proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially
free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient,
or adequate for good service or future expansion of
electrical use.

If the plumber installs a section of Pex just inside the structure and isolates the major portion of the water system you believe that this is OK?
 
Forget about the water heater (hot/cold systems), we will never agree on that.

What is your opinion of this: (ICC based residential)

115.6 Replacement and repairs to systems, components and materials.

Replacement of building components and repairs to existing systems and materials or building components not otherwise provided for in this section shall not be required to meet the provisions for new construction, provided such work is done in accordance with the conditions of the existing approval in the same manner and arrangement as was in the existing system, is not less safe than when originally installed and is approved.

Say the plumber isolates part of the system. Since the NEC is silent on this would you use 90.4 and require a bond using #6 copper? Would you do nothing?

(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered
necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and
proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially
free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient,
or adequate for good service or future expansion of
electrical use.

If the plumber installs a section of Pex just inside the structure and isolates the major portion of the water system you believe that this is OK?

What is going to energize the isolated part of the system? Anything that possibly does have a chance of doing so likely also has an equipment grounding conductor that also is bonded to the pipe where connected to that equipment.

Years ago this was not an issue, water piping was all metallic, you were allowed to bond to it at any convenient location, and it did not matter as it was all electrically continuous. Now there is so much mixing of metallic and non metallic components it is impossible to rely on electrical continuity of the piping.

With fittings like presented early in this thread you do not have a complete metallic system, you have many small isolated metallic sections in a system. By all means if one particular section is likely to become energized then bond it to the equipment grounding conductor of the circuit that is likely to energize it.
 
Forget about the water heater (hot/cold systems), we will never agree on that.
I just hope that someday you agree with the Code Making Panel that writes this section.

What is your opinion of this: (ICC based residential)

115.6 Replacement and repairs to systems, components and materials.

Replacement of building components and repairs to existing systems and materials or building components not otherwise provided for in this section shall not be required to meet the provisions for new construction, provided such work is done in accordance with the conditions of the existing approval in the same manner and arrangement as was in the existing system, is not less safe than when originally installed and is approved.
Again we are not talking about anything other than the NEC. I understand you trying to prove your point by using other codes but the other codes does not apply to the NEC. This is a NEC discussion forum not an ICC discussion forum. I make my installations by the NEC and the person charged to do my inspections must use the NEC to do the inspection. We both will have a bad day the first time an inspector starts quoting plumbing codes when doing my inspections.

Say the plumber isolates part of the system. Since the NEC is silent on this would you use 90.4 and require a bond using #6 copper? Would you do nothing?
Being that 90.4 is not enforceable why would I even try to use it.
If the plumber did something to the pipes of a plumbing systems why would I even mention anything about electrical?

(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered
necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and
proper maintenance results in an installation that is essentially
free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient,
or adequate for good service or future expansion of
electrical use.
Again this is part of the introduction to the code and is not enforceable.

If the plumber installs a section of Pex just inside the structure and isolates the major portion of the water system you believe that this is OK?
The code making panel charged with the section of the code that would address this makes the statement that it is not a complete metal piping system therefore bond using table 250.122. They think it is okay.
Do you disagree with them?
 
Mike as always on this subject we disagree. Let's wait and see if things change in the future. :thumbsup:
Weather you and I agree or not is not of much importance but if one of us are in disagreement with the code then one of us have a problem.

I contend that the information found in 250.104(A)(1) clearly states that the bonding of metal water piping systems must be bonded to one of four places and another pipe is not one of them.

I respectfully ask you to show me the errors of my thinking. Show me verbiage that states that one pipe can be bonded to another pipe unless that pipe is a grounding electrode.
With the upmost of respect I come to you for a better understanding of bonding one metal piping system (hot) to another piping system (cold) if this is what you are calling the potable water system.
Please help me understand what is meant by bonding around non-metallic pipe fittings to make a metal piping system electrically continuous.

I have read Article 250 several times over the past couple of days and can?t find any requirement to make and keep metal components of a piping system electrically continuous.

Please help.
 
Mike I will try. We both just want to have the correct answer.

First I 'assume' that the code wants the material copper, steel whatever metal to be bonded to itself. It is not spelled out in the code.

Please look at this graphic. In this graphic let us assume no gas furnace.
2nd assume that we must bond the gas lines.

Would you allow the gas lines to be bonded via the hot water tank? If not then why would you think that the hot water tank can bond the cold and hot water sections (I'll call them sections)?

250-21-copy_web.jpg

PS in the graphic would the waterlines going below the slab be electrodes? If so would you jumper or use the hot water tank?
 
Mike I will try. We both just want to have the correct answer.
In this graphic one can see that the XO of the transformer and the water pipe coming out of the concrete is bonded to the building steel. Based on this I am assuming that the building steel is an electrode.
I don?t see any other bonding done to any other pipe as the equipment grounding conductor installed with the branch circuit that is supplying the equipment connected to these pipes does the required bonding outlined in 250.104(B)

I see nothing that would suggest that there is any flex gas pipe installed so there is no requirement to bond the gas pipe at all. If there was a need to bond the gas pipe then it would have to land at the service enclosure, the neutral, a grounding electrode conductor, or a grounding electrode not a pipe.


I have never thought that the hot and cold is required to be bonded together. There is no verbiage found in the NEC that requires the two to be bonded together. There is verbiage found in 250.104(A)(1) that clearly states that any bonding jumper installed to bond metal water pipes must land at either the service enclosure, the neutral, a grounding electrode conductor, or a grounding electrode. It does not say that one pipe can be bonded to another pipe. To bond one pipe to another pipe would be a violation of the very section of the NEC that some are trying to enforce.

The requirement found in 250.53(D)(1) is when we are making our 250.104(A)(1) connection to the electrode and does not apply if the bonding of the water pipe is carried back to one of the other three items outlined in 250.104(A)(1). A bonding jumper would not be required around a water meter should someone install the 250.104(A)(1) bonding jumper to any other place other than the water pipe electrode.

On a side note; as an electrical inspector I would never waste my time looking for any type of a water pipe bond on a building supplied by a well. As the IAEI article you posted a link to says, this is just about the silliest thing done in the electrical trade today.
 
On a side note; as an electrical inspector I would never waste my time looking for any type of a water pipe bond on a building supplied by a well. As the IAEI article you posted a link to says, this is just about the silliest thing done in the electrical trade today.

I don't get what being supplied by a well has to do with anything. If the underground supply piping is a qualifying electrode is all that matters no matter where the water comes from. It is common for the supply piping to be non metallic if the supply is a domestic well, but not impossible for it to be metal piping either. Many older installations with domestic wells are still there that do have metallic piping.
 
I don't get what being supplied by a well has to do with anything. If the underground supply piping is a qualifying electrode is all that matters no matter where the water comes from. It is common for the supply piping to be non metallic if the supply is a domestic well, but not impossible for it to be metal piping either. Many older installations with domestic wells are still there that do have metallic piping.
Let me make it a little clearer. If there is no electrode involved and it is a residential installation then I wouldn?t look too hard for an interior bond to the pipes.

If this home is out in the county and on a well pray tell me other than it being somewhere in the NEC just what good it does. I can see the need where the system is in a city and is supplied by a water utility (the reason it remains in the NEC) but not when the water system is self-contained on someone?s property.

I am on a well and have a #10 EGC at the well and another at the water heater. What more is needed?
I have a 300 amp service which would require a #2 bonding jumper to the pipes. Just what is going to load those pipes to 90 amps or more? :?

Take the same piping system with a couple of non-metallic fittings and no bond is required at all so what makes a complete system somehow become more dangerous and need all this bonding? Again I am talking about a home out in the county.

As always I am eager to learn as much as I can before I die. I want to be remembered as someone who had a desire to understand all that is possible about these bonding requirements so please enlighten me on the difference between a piping system that is 90% not needing any bonding but one that is 100% now being so dangerous.
Please help me understand the need of having a conductor that will carry more current than the pipe connected from the cold to the hot when the very section cited when it is not done clearly states that this bond has to be located at one of four places and another pipe is not one of them.

Yes if there was an electrode involved then I would bond to this electrode but I would not worry about the interior part of that pipe. I am eager to learn why I should worry. Can someone explain where all this current is going to come from. :dunce:
 
Let me make it a little clearer. If there is no electrode involved and it is a residential installation then I wouldn?t look too hard for an interior bond to the pipes.

If this home is out in the county and on a well pray tell me other than it being somewhere in the NEC just what good it does. I can see the need where the system is in a city and is supplied by a water utility (the reason it remains in the NEC) but not when the water system is self-contained on someone?s property.

I am on a well and have a #10 EGC at the well and another at the water heater. What more is needed?
I have a 300 amp service which would require a #2 bonding jumper to the pipes. Just what is going to load those pipes to 90 amps or more? :?

Take the same piping system with a couple of non-metallic fittings and no bond is required at all so what makes a complete system somehow become more dangerous and need all this bonding? Again I am talking about a home out in the county.

As always I am eager to learn as much as I can before I die. I want to be remembered as someone who had a desire to understand all that is possible about these bonding requirements so please enlighten me on the difference between a piping system that is 90% not needing any bonding but one that is 100% now being so dangerous.
Please help me understand the need of having a conductor that will carry more current than the pipe connected from the cold to the hot when the very section cited when it is not done clearly states that this bond has to be located at one of four places and another pipe is not one of them.

Yes if there was an electrode involved then I would bond to this electrode but I would not worry about the interior part of that pipe. I am eager to learn why I should worry. Can someone explain where all this current is going to come from. :dunce:

I do wonder myself about whether or not interior piping needs to be bonded by a 250.66 sized conductor. But what does that have to do with whether or not the water is supplied by a well or municipal system?

If a qualifying electrode exists it needs a 250.66 sized conductor. Interior piping (beyond 5 feet of the entrance) is not a qualifying electrode but is often inherently bonded by same GEC as exterior piping.
 
I do wonder myself about whether or not interior piping needs to be bonded by a 250.66 sized conductor. But what does that have to do with whether or not the water is supplied by a well or municipal system?

If a qualifying electrode exists it needs a 250.66 sized conductor. Interior piping (beyond 5 feet of the entrance) is not a qualifying electrode but is often inherently bonded by same GEC as exterior piping.
In large old cities such as New York and others the public water utilities will often have metal pipes and be tapped with metal pipes supplying the buildings. In this case should the metal water pipe be used as an electrode and the loss of a neutral could send current across the utility pipes.

Someone install a non-metallic pipe to supply a new building with the additives in the water in these lines it is possible to have current on the pipes in the building even if the building is supplied with non-metallic systems.

In a dwelling unit on one acre of land with a well I can?t see this happening.

We use the metal pipe as an electrode for the four reasons outlined in 250.4(A)(1). We bond metal around bodies of water with #8 for touch potential. Why do we bond interior metal water pipes that are not part of an electrode with anything more than #8?
I can?t conceive in my mind why anyone would bond hot to cold. An old building is converted to apartments and the electrical and water is included with the rent. This old building has one service and one water supply that is copper throughout the entire building but the incoming water line is non-metallic. Each unit no matter the size of the panel supplying that unit by the thoughts of some electrical inspectors will require a 3/0 bond across the hot and cold water lines. This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

In this old building there is no electrode for the service but two 8 foot ground rods but some electrical inspectors will still try to require this 3/0 water bond between the hot and cold in each unit. Why? What purpose does it serve? Yes I bumped heads with an electrical inspector on a similar installation a few years back. No I did not do it either.
 
In large old cities such as New York and others the public water utilities will often have metal pipes and be tapped with metal pipes supplying the buildings. In this case should the metal water pipe be used as an electrode and the loss of a neutral could send current across the utility pipes.

That is a side effect of bonding to the metallic piping system in multiple buildings where you create parallel current paths by doing so.

Someone install a non-metallic pipe to supply a new building with the additives in the water in these lines it is possible to have current on the pipes in the building even if the building is supplied with non-metallic systems.

In a dwelling unit on one acre of land with a well I can’t see this happening.

That does happen and can happen with just naturally existing minerals in the water. The resistance of this "conductor of water" is nowhere near how low the resistance of a metal pipe is either Please don't try to associate the water in the pipe and the conductivity of a metal pipe as being anything alike, otherwise the fitting in question in the OP is a mute point - the water in the pipe would perform the bonding if that were the case.


We use the metal pipe as an electrode for the four reasons outlined in 250.4(A)(1). We bond metal around bodies of water with #8 for touch potential. Why do we bond interior metal water pipes that are not part of an electrode with anything more than #8?
I can’t conceive in my mind why anyone would bond hot to cold. An old building is converted to apartments and the electrical and water is included with the rent. This old building has one service and one water supply that is copper throughout the entire building but the incoming water line is non-metallic. Each unit no matter the size of the panel supplying that unit by the thoughts of some electrical inspectors will require a 3/0 bond across the hot and cold water lines. This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

In this old building there is no electrode for the service but two 8 foot ground rods but some electrical inspectors will still try to require this 3/0 water bond between the hot and cold in each unit. Why? What purpose does it serve? Yes I bumped heads with an electrical inspector on a similar installation a few years back. No I did not do it either.

I have stated that I do question the need for a 250.66 sized bond to interior piping, why you keep going back to that? If what is being bonded is in fact an electrode then there is no question, all I initially asked is what does the fact that there is or is not a well have to do with any of it? Underground piping is either an electrode or it is not, interior piping is a different issue, one which I mostly agree with you on.



I will add: Even though I agree with most of what you say about interior piping, especially the need for a 250.66 sized bonding conductor, the NEC still says what it says. If you want that changed this forum is not going to get that done, you need to submit a proposal to the NEC through proper procedures. You need to start with finding out the reasons why it is worded the way it is - which has been a long time - maybe some minor changes along the way but the sizing according to GEC size has been that way a long time. Doesn't mean it isn't time for a change but you need to present a good reason to the panel as to why it needs changed or it will get rejected, and since it has been the way it is for so long you need to get their attention somehow or it may be rejected without necessarily reading all of what you have to say.
 
Last edited:
In order to have something in the NEC changed there has to be substantiation to the change. The bonding of metal water pipes goes back father than the statement that the grounding was done to facilitate the operation of the overcurrent device. Read the Fine Print Note found in the scope of the 1984 Edition.

1984Scope.jpg



There are many things that need to be addressed that are long standing in the NEC.

In this discussion all I have been addressing is the bonding of the interior metal water pipes not the electrode.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top