Red tags and more Red tags

[hurk27]

How about this one a handy box mounted to the side of a surface mounted panel via two screws and a chase nipple with a GFCI mounted in it that has a hot, a neutral, and a grounding conductor that terminates on the grounding buss bar. The red tag was for not having the receptacle bonded to the handy box :roll:

Not bonding across the cold to hot water pipe at the water heater. :roll:

Bundling. To many NM in one 2" hole through TGI joist. and this was even after we seperated them between each joist.

I didn't do the wiring but had to make the corrections.

 

[charlie b]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Originally posted by hurk27: Disposal and dishwasher on the same circuit. Nether exceeded the 50% of the circuit that 210.23(A)(2) requires. His remark was the total of both appliances can not exceed the 50%.

I agree with the notion that the 50% limit applies to the total of all appliances, not singly to each appliance. But if the disposal and dishwasher are both fastened in place (I can?t imagine otherwise), and if both are hard-wired (neither is plug and cord), and if nothing else in on that circuit, then 210.23(A)(2) does not apply. For the 50% limit to come into play, you must have a light or a in item that is ?fastened, but not hard wired,? in addition to the ?fastened, and hard wired? item.

I think this is another section that is in need of clarification.

 

[hurk27]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

From what I gather the intent of 210.23(A)(2) is that if you use a circuit to feed the receptacle for the disposal then the dishwasher then jump off and feed a receptacle in the dinning room then the total rating of both units would have to be less than 50%. This is to allow room for a small additional load to be plugged in the dinning room receptacle, or a lighting outlet. But if the circuit only feeds these two appliances then they must meet the 80% rule in 210.23(A)(1) in which says that each one could be allowed to have a rating of 80% of the branch circuit. Which I think is wrong as it should be that the total of both should not exceed 100% non-continuous load of the circuit rating. Neither the disposal or the dishwasher could be considered as a continuous load.

And to father complement this is that table 210.24 tells us that a 20 amp circuit is allowed to have a 20 amp load under the line Maximum Load

[ August 13, 2004, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]

 

[a.wayne3@verizon.net]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Where do you see a lighting load allowed on a kitchen circuit.DW`s and disposal are as far as I am concerned a small appliance.Contionuous load debatable but to share wuth a lighting load no way!

 

[iwire]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Alan what gave you the idea DW`s and disposals have to be on the small appliance branch circuits?

They can be on 15 amp GP circuits.

Wayne I agree with Charlie Bs read on this section.

210.23(A(2) Utilization Equipment Fastened in Place. The total rating of utilization equipment fastened in place, other than luminaires (lighting fixtures), shall not exceed 50 percent of the branch-circuit ampere rating where lighting units, cord-and-plug-connected utilization equipment not fastened in place, or both, are also supplied.

If they meant it like you are reading it IMO the word 'total' would not be there at all.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

DW`s and disposal are as far as I am concerned a small appliance.Contionuous load debatable but to share wuth a lighting load no way!

The outlets that supply these items are not permitted to be supplied by the kitchen small appliance branch circuits. These outlets are not counter top outlets and are not required by 210.52(A) and therefore they are not permitted to be on the small appliance branch circuit by 210.52(B)(2).
Don

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Wayne,

"if you use a circuit to feed the receptacle for the disposal then the dishwasher then jump off and feed a receptacle in the dinning room then the total rating of both units would have to be less than 50%. This is to allow room for a small additional load to be plugged in the dinning room receptacle, or a lighting outlet."


you can't have the disposal and/or dishwasher on the same circut as the dining room. Or do I misunderstand what you are saying?

[ August 14, 2004, 08:45 PM: Message edited by: luke warmwater ]

 

[hurk27]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Yes I see where I was mis understanding the artical and also agree with Charlie B That was why I changed the words in the next responce:

total rating of both units would have to be less than 50%.

TY

jump off and feed a receptacle in the dinning room

I was just using that as an example. The intent I was trying to portray was that if the circuit only feeds these two appliances then 210.23(A)(2) should not be involved. Like if I have a duplex receptacle under the sink counter and half of it switch for the disposal and the other is live all the time for the dishwasher. I would think since there is no unused receptacles that could be used without unpluging one of the others first. and If the total connected load is below the 100% rating of the circuit then all should be well as these are not continous loads. But if this circuit also fed receptacles for other cord and plug connected or lighting loads then the 50% would apply.

 

[hurk27]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

I think I found a article that would not allow this installation:

210.21(B)(2) Total Cord-and-Plug-Connected Load. Where connected to a branch circuit supplying two or more receptacles or outlets, a receptacle shall not supply a total cord-and-plug-connected load in excess of the maximum specified in Table 210.21(B)(2).

And the Table 210.21(B)(2) only allows for 12 amps using a 15 amp rated receptacle or 16 amps for one rated 20 amps

But what if I install two single receptacles? One for each appliance? Each would have a 12 amp or 16 amp allowance that the appliance wouldn't be over.

 

[pierre]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

If one is to install a disposal and a dishwasher supplied by one-20 amp circuit (lets say they are cord and plug connected and there are no other loads on that circuit)and the load of the two appliances does not exceed 12 amps for 15 ampere rated receptacle or 16 amps for a 20 ampere rated receptacle, they can both be installed on that one 20 amp circuit.
If they are both installed using a single receptacle and on the same circuit, the single receptacles are now two receptacles on the same circuit, so 210.21(B)(1) does not pertain to this installation.

[ August 15, 2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: pierre ]

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

hurk,
Each contact device is a receptacle. A standard duplex is two receptacles and I don't think that 210.21(B)(2) would be violated unless the load on a single contact device exceeded 12 amps for a 15 amp rated device or 16 amps for a 20 amp rated device. If you are using a 15 amp duplex, you can connect two 12 amp devices without violating this code section.
Don

 

[hurk27]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Thank's Don I wasn't thinking (as usual) :roll:

Pierre:

If they are both installed using a single receptacle and on the same circuit, the single receptacles are now two receptacles on the same circuit, so 210.21(B)(1) does not pertain to this installation.

How is this when 210.21(B)(1)says:

Where connected to a branch circuit supplying two or more receptacles or outlets ,

It doesn't say that single receptacles wouldn't count? It means two or more receptacles on the circuit, and two single receptacles would be two or more wouldn't it?

The other question is, 250.146 allows for the device to be grounded to the box through the yoke if the box is surface mounted and if at least one of the screw retainer washers is removed to allow direct metal to metal contact. And if the box is flush mounted then the receptacle has to have a contact device that maintains continuity on the screw as in a self grounding receptacle.

With that said if you used a short section of conduit to run down a basement wall to a handy box, and the EGC in the circuit cable is connected to the receptacle terminal. would the reverse also apply since the grounding conductor is now connected to the receptacle first will 250.146 allow the receptacle yoke to bond the box and conduit as 250.148 requires? 250.148 doesn't seem to allow it, and I don't understand why? It's like the bonding of the box and conduit is more important than the bonding of the receptacle.

And for the last question:
The requirement of bonding between the cold and hot water pipes at the water heater?

Now this is the first time that we have had an inspector in this area require this, and it's been a long time that I was ever required to make this bond.
I know we have talked about this before but it was awhile back and I think because most dwellings today will have one or more points of connection (mixing valves) between the hot and cold water pipes that a bond at the water heater is unnecessary. But I could see this call in a commercial environment as few will have these connections if only it has simple sinks that are connected by plastic hoses. restaurants will have this connection because of the health boards requirement to have the bathroom sink hot water temperature at 120 degs. and the wash temp at 160 degs. this would require a mixing valve unless two water heaters were used.
I would just like some input on this before I approach the inspector.

Just to let you know, and I know Charlie E. has mention it many times also. Here in Indiana a local unit of government is not allowed to make up his own rules. And Indiana has even removed 90.4 from Indiana's electrical code putting in it's place the state IC code requirement that any variance to the IEC has to be accepted by the state building commissioners before it can be adopted as a local code. So they have to go by what is in the IEC as verbatim because any changes will be in there.

Thank's for every's one's help as I really appreciate it.

 

[apauling]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

electrical connections made at threaded pipe, sealed with pipe dope or teflon tape are not considered electrically continuous for the purpose of bonding. see delineation at jumping/bonding over water pipe electrode joints.

common sense may say that it is likely that there is some sort of bond at hot/cold connection, the use of washers, fiber or plastic nuts, and non metallic or insulated connections is more likely. Why, in fact, is it required to bond the hot and cold at the water heater? because the joint at this metallic body is NOT, repeat NOT electrically continuous for the purpose of bonding. This is exactly the same reason that connections at other plumbing fixtures is not adequate.

paul

 

[hurk27]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Around here most mixing valves are sweated in and do not use thread compound or tape. we have never been required around here to bond across the hopt and cold pipes here before but this inspector is new and want to require it. Even the water closet for the washer is sweated in.

 

[iwire]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Paul can you cite a code section that supports this statement?

Why, in fact, is it required to bond the hot and cold at the water heater? because the joint at this metallic body is NOT, repeat NOT electrically continuous for the purpose of bonding.

I know the handbook is not code but the opinions of the authors is that judgments must be made.

If it cannot reasonably be concluded that the hot and cold water pipes are reliably interconnected, an electrical bonding jumper is required to ensure that this connection is made. Some judgment must be exercised for each installation. The special installation requirements provided in 250.64(A), (B), and (E) also apply to the water piping bonding jumper.

Many times it can be reasonably concluded that the hot and cold are reliably interconnected. Places you can count on this are at the Tub shower mixing valves, some washing machine shut off valves and in the case of my tank-less hot water heater right at the heater.

electrical connections made at threaded pipe, sealed with pipe dope or Teflon tape are not considered electrically continuous for the purpose of bonding.

I agree about the Teflon tape but not about the pipe dope.

If you do not consider threaded joints made with pipe dope electrically continuous do you require each joint in gas piping to have bonding jumpers?

Bob

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Properly made plumbing pipe joints, even where pipe dope or tape has been used, will have metal to metal contact. In plumbing pipe the purpose of the dope or tape is not to provide a seal, but to provide lubrication so that the joint can be made up tight. Plumbing pipe joints have both the male and female threads tapered and depend on direct metal to metal contact to make the seal. If in fact pipe dope or tape prevents electrical contact, then what purpose does a single plumbing pipe bonding connection serve?
Don

 

[iwire]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
Properly made plumbing pipe joints, even where pipe dope or tape has been used, will have metal to metal contact.

Don the only reason I questioned the continuity of Teflon joint is because of the following.

I just recently replaced the water level sensor on my steam boiler and both the instructions for the old Honeywell unit and the new Taco unit prohibited the use of Teflon Tape on the threads of the probe into the boiler. Both gave the reason as electrical continuity was needed between the probe and the boiler. Both units recommended pipe dope.

Personally I do not see how you could have a tightly made up joint without metal to metal contact because of Teflon tape but I must assume it was an issue for both of these manufacturers.

Bob

[ August 16, 2004, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]

 

[jimwalker]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

My thinking says you would have a hard time using teflon tape and still not get metal to metal

 

[apauling]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Iwire: I want to be clear that It is not my opinion that the piping needs to be provided with bonding jumpers, BUT the nec has seen fit to mention this where water piping was used as an electrode and where water piping encounters water meters and similar equip (250.50 of 99 nec,not sure of 2002 location) the bonding path shall not be considered electrically continuous if relying on the metal bodies of these devices (and similar devices).

i think that the definition of "similar devices" is the ruling limiter here. I take it to mean that metallic inteupting bodies are not deemed reliable bonding paths. if the water heater is jumped, there is no reliance on the other interupting bodies, like valves.

We are not arguing the obvious fact that there is metallic contact , but what the nec considers reliable bonding path.

can't find the right message icon



paul

 

[hurk27]

Re: Red tags and more Red tags

250-50 = 250.53 in the "2002"
Paul the intent of this statement is not because the water meters or filtering devices and similar equipment would not make a good connection, It is because they are easily removed and are removed often. and if removed then there would be no more grounding electrode. The only requirement is for grounding electrodes. not bonding you have to read the whole chapter and not just pick out sentences that sound like they should be used with other systems. I agree that the hot and cold water pipes must be connected but in newer houses there are many connections that are not easily removed and all of them would have to be removed to break this bond, which is very unlikely. This inspector had made the statement that a mixing valve is not a UL listed bond. But think about it nether is any pipe coupling, elbow, union. This could go on forever as to the pipe connections that then would have to be bonded around. What about a house that is plumbed in galvanize water pipe? are all these threaded pipe connections not allowed to be not only used as a grounding electrode connection but also not allowed to be used for bonding connection's? There are still many houses that the owners want to have threaded pipe installed and not copper or PVC. so where in the NEC does it not allow these pipe connections to be used for bonding or grounding electrode connection?

Here is exactly what it says in the 2002:

250.53 (D) Metal Underground Water Pipe. Where used as a grounding electrode, metal underground water pipe shall meet the requirements of 250.53(D)(1) and (D)(2).

(1) Continuity. Continuity of the grounding path or the bonding connection to interior piping shall not rely on water meters or filtering devices and similar equipment.

I added the bold to show that 250.53(D)(1) is what we must do if we use a water pipe as a grounding electrode. This statement is not repeated anywhere else in the NEC and specially in the bonding section

And also the grounding Path mention in (1) is the bond path to the water pipe within the 5' of entering the building that runs outside to the at least 10' of water pipe in contact with Earth, otherwise known as the grounding electrode part of the water system.

And also there is a water meter system that has a sweat in yoke that has a solid connection across the two pipes that does not get removed when the meter is removed. I have never had a inspector make us bond across these because the intent is based upon wether or not the removal will break the bond.

Ok Paul pick one:

[ August 17, 2004, 01:50 AM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]