Re: Residential 2 wire recptacles
I understand your concept, but I'm left confused by experience.
If I run my water bond to 1' from the entrance to the building, and the metering equipment is at two feet, I will fail a house if I do not bond the far side of the water meter to the side closer to the entrance. Every time.
If I have a jetted tub, and the entire water system is copper, I am permitted to bond my tub to the cold water pipe at the tub. Every time.
So, it leaves me wondering if "GES" or "GEC" is accurate, or a fast and dirty way of saying "water pipe" without realizing the restriction that it is then put under, the 5' rule.
Originally posted by 1793:
I had a post awhile back about this same grounding situation that George poses. It was explained to me that anything further than the 5 feet, could be replaced with a section of PVC. Therefore, anything attached to metal AFTER the PVC could become energized and become an electrocution situation.
It seems like everybody I know, sparky, inspector or otherwise, understands this issue the way I do.
My point is, is using the water pipe beyond 5' a legitimate hazard, or code massaging for code's sake?
I just see "any accessible point" taunting us with either a lie, or a silly way of saying within five feet of entrance, if accessible. If you're right, and I am by no means saying you're not, then this portion needs revision, because everybody I know reads it wrong.
The original code, before it sends you hither thither and yon, should say something meaningful before it sends you on the hunt. This one says something totally different before it sends you to 250.50, which sends you to 250.52, which never directly addresses bonding, because it's focus is grounding.
Your point about 250.118 is valid, but if you were to add (just for our purposes here) 230.130(C)(6), "Any accessible point on a metallic water piping system that is connected to the GES", 250.118 flies right out the window. 250.130 would then have expressly permitted what 250.118 didn't expressly permit, but didn't forbid. As it has been commonly interpreted in this fashion, I'd say we need some rewriting, either way.
Given your handbook reference, I can see which way it would go.
But...is there a hazard/body count?