Red tags and more Red tags

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Red tags and more Red tags

hurk: methinks you read too fast. The 99 NEC says.. "Continuity of the GROUNDING PATH or the BONDING connection to INTERIOR piping SHALL NOT rely on water meters, or filtering devices and similar equipment." That is not merely an electrode. And where it talks about the electrodes (same section referenced in my original post) it talks about bonding around insulating joints.

In my experience, all the appliances are changed at a frequency almost infinitely greater than the water meters. It almost takes a new house to get a new water meter. Even then it is seldom changed.

I don't even work in a county that requires the water heater bonded. I just thought I'd interject some actual relevant code into the discussion.

paul
 
Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Me thinks you right. :eek:
I was thinking the "to interior piping" Part was talking about where the EGC lands on the pipe if it places a water meter in the path to the street side. H'mmm I'm just wondering why this not repeated in 250.104(A) or (A)(1)?????

And also that 250.52(A)(1) kind of repeats this requirement by this statement:
or more (including any metal well casing effectively bonded to the pipe) and electrically continuous (or made electrically continuous by bonding around insulating joints or insulating pipe ) to the points of connection of the grounding electrode conductor
Click to expand...
Maybe it just my thinking because they only located this in the article for grounding electrode requirements and not in the requirements for bonding of water pipes IE:250.104(A)
But still believe that the mixing valves would be allowed for a bond when they are sweated in and have a solid body that has no break in the valve body. and also there is several places that you can see where the plumber has soldered a piece of copper pipe between them for a brace. and if this soldered piece is not accepted then what about every sweated connection that might be between the EGC connection and the "interior piping" :confused:

[ August 18, 2004, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
 
Re: Red tags and more Red tags

RE: Dishwasher/Garb. disposal on same circuit.
I read a Creighton Schwan article a while back where he cited 430.53(A)(1) as a reason you could not put these 2 appliances on the same circuit.

Only the very smallest of garb. disposals would make the 6 amp limitation in this section.
 
Re: Red tags and more Red tags

Dana
I think this is when you calculate the branch circuit feeder to the overload setting which is allowed to be 170% over the FLA of the motor as per 430.32(A)(2)
And the short circuit protection of the motor and branch circuit conductors are allowed to be up 800% over the FLA. as per table 430.52.

So I don't think this section would apply to a branch circuit that is protected for overload and short circuit by the same breaker and the branch circuit conductors are sized for the OCPD not for the motor load.
At least that's what I get. So it's open for commit

[ August 18, 2004, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
 
Re: Red tags and more Red tags

hurk: I had afew minutes to look in the 2002 and they took out the continuity section. I can surmise the reasoning. I am not disagreeing about the common sense part, but they claim they don't pay me for my common sense.

but if common sense was really important in bonding and grounding, CSST manufacturers would make bonding fittings for each end of the piping system instead of talking the NEC into disregarding its own definitions of bonding, allowing easily removable stoves to disconnect the ONLY bond for the gas system. SO we can dispense with the BS about common sense (just kidding).

I wish it were more straight forward, stating the principle and intentfor code changes. I don't have the time to follow the panel stuff.

Here's another common sense one: It can be successfully argued that afci protection is more about saving structures than lives, previous thread. Others may disagree, but, but I am only proposing that an exception be made for medical and other life safety circuits that are in the bedrooms of the aged, ill, incapacitated. Asit is, an accident (like a fall) that may cause a afci to fail, spilled water, broken lamp, etc, may also shut off the equipment that could summon help, including powered phones, medical monitors, oxygen machines, etc. If common sense prevailed, circuits for life safety should be allowed in conduit, on normal breakers.

enough
 
Re: Red tags and more Red tags

That make allot of sense and I agree with the AFCI issue as they did remove smokes from being on AFCI's in the "2005" or I think they did? :confused: At least they should have. I have yet had a demonstration by a manufacture that convinced me that these afci's do anything more than what any GFP @ 30ma would do. while the idea is a good one and the fact any current leakage to a grounding source will open the circuit, but a GFP's Will also do this and they have been around for quiet awhile. One nice thing about this is that even BX cable could be safely used because any fault to the grounding would always open the breaker. and the BX would never be subject to the full fault current.

But on another note:
I was wondering why I have got no replies about the having to bond a receptacle to the surface mounted box question? Maybe I have the right thinking on it but was looking for what others think on this.
Thanks everyone for the replies

[ August 19, 2004, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top