water pipe cut off

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see how the informal interpretation backs either side in the discussion. It simply repeats the existing code language and says to see the AHJ. Since most AHJs would tend to support the concept that the metal water pipe has to be in physical contact with the structure served, wouldn't that tend to go against Mr. Whitt in this case?
 
George not meaning to sound rude so please forgive me if it sounds this way.
Is not what you are saying an assumption of what someone else might say and nothing about the actual statement of those people?
I can quote the direct statement of several code officials that says that you will use the water pipe and they won?t be an assumption but a fact of statement
 
iwire said:
Mike, this ranks as one of the most ridiculous positions you have taken.

Enjoy your fun with words, luckily most inspectors are better than that.

By your interpretation I have to connect to every metal water pipe in the world.
Click to expand...

George Stolz said:
I don't see how the informal interpretation backs either side in the discussion. It simply repeats the existing code language and says to see the AHJ. Since most AHJs would tend to support the concept that the metal water pipe has to be in physical contact with the structure served, wouldn't that tend to go against Mr. Whitt in this case?
Click to expand...

The more I think about these two statements the more I think just how incredible stupid they sound.

I think I understand the two moderators backing each other but neither one of them has presented a poll of comments from all these inspectors and their opinion.

Could either one of you present these opinions from all those inspectors to back these comments?

Please show some verbiage that is code founded to back your statement. I have done nothing but quote what is written and what is written says that in order for the metal water pipe electrode to enter the building then the building has to be undergorund.
 
jwelectric said:
The more I think about these two statements the more I think just how incredible stupid they sound.
Click to expand...
Sucking up will get you nowhere. :D

I think I understand the two moderators backing each other...
Click to expand...
I think you've been around the block long enough to know that - gasp - sometimes the moderators do not agree on all topics. All moderators agreeing on any given topic is a miracle. I think your perception is clouded by external influences. Bob and I have disagreed on more than one topic in the past, and will continue to do so.

It's kind of disheartening to see a man of your intelligence not able to recognize that truth, and I think your perceptions have been clouded by your associations.

jwelectric said:
...but neither one of them has presented a poll of comments from all these inspectors and their opinion.

Could either one of you present these opinions from all those inspectors to back these comments?
Click to expand...
I do not have a stack of opinions on this matter sitting on my desk. I was amazed to see that you say you do.

My perception of how I believe the AHJs in my area would rule is based on my own experiences, and conversations on this forum. It has been said repeatedly (without contest) here in the past that water utilities frequently install isolation fittings to sever them from the premises electrical systems. The concept that installing an isolation fitting would unmake a water pipe electrode has been unchallenged around here for as long as I can remember.

What I enjoy about your continued presence here is that you challenge these unquestioned truths and make us examine the book more closely. I hope you continue to participate in this role for years to come, I am the better for it.

Please show some verbiage that is code founded to back your statement. I have done nothing but quote what is written and what is written says that in order for the metal water pipe electrode to enter the building then the building has to be undergorund.
Click to expand...

All evidence I have supports the idea that the CMPs would agree that all water lines present on the property are required to be used as electrodes.

I continue to believe there is some truth between both sides of this argument, as the language is still unclear. The example of a campus-style setup illuminates this problem. 2017 can't come soon enough.

I would add one last thought: the CMP would likely state that sprinkler lines are required to be used as electrodes, but I daresay that a minority of AHJs view the code as requiring that. It is in that vein that I continue to believe that AHJs in my area would likely accept a plastic fitting 6" from the building as "unmaking" a water line electrode. I state this as a gut feeling, not as a substantiated fact.
 
jwelectric said:
Well George just for you.

In 10.6.8 of NFPA 13 it clearly states that a fire sprinkler system shall not be used as a grounding electrode
Click to expand...

I also found this:

ROP 2007 said:
Panel Statement: A metallic fire sprinkler piping system is metal water piping system that is covered by Section 250.104(A). Section 250.104(A) does not differentiate or exclude between the various types of metal water piping systems that might be present in a building or structure. Section 250.104(B) covers metal piping systems other than those metal water piping systems covered by 250.104(A).
Click to expand...

Fire sprinkler lines are required to be used as an electrode per 250.50.
 
George Stolz said:
Does the NEC say that?
Click to expand...
No but NFA 13 does
George Stolz said:
I also found this:
Originally Posted by ROP 2007, Proposal 5-240
Panel Statement: A metallic fire sprinkler piping system is metal water piping system that is covered by Section 250.104(A). Section 250.104(A) does not differentiate or exclude between the various types of metal water piping systems that might be present in a building or structure. Section 250.104(B) covers metal piping systems other than those metal water piping systems covered by 250.104(A).
Click to expand...
There is a big differene between .50 and .104 in 250 of the NEC
George Stolz said:
Fire sprinkler lines are required to be used as an electrode per 250.50.
Click to expand...
No NFPA 13 over rides NFPA 70
 
jwelectric said:
In 10.6.8 of NFPA 13 it clearly states that a fire sprinkler system shall not be used as a grounding electrode
Click to expand...
But that isn't substantiation of one NFPA group over riding another. Where is it stated that NFPA 13 over rules NFPA 70? Substantiation isn't one person wanting it one way and another wanting it the other way.


Roger
 
jwelectric said:
There is a big differene between .50 and .104 in 250 of the NEC
Click to expand...
The principle that should be clear is their similarity. 250.52(A)(1) discusses metal water piping systems, as does 250.104(A). If they say that metal sprinkler piping is metal water piping in 250.104, then it is the same in Part III.

No NFPA 13 over rides NFPA 70
Click to expand...
Not to electricians.

The NFPA codes conflict.

According to 250.50, I would need to use electrodes installed for NFPA-780 as well - there is no exception for those. I am aware that 250.60 contradicts this statement - 250.50 and 250.60 contradict each other. Is it such a surprise that NFPA-70 contradicts NFPA-13?
 
I agree with Mike that NFPA 13 over rides NFPA 70. It is the case of the more specific rule over riding a more general rule. The rule in NFPA 70 is a general rule and the rule in NFPA 13 is a specific rule. The only issue is that the sprinker piping will requrie some type of dielectric fitting where it enters the building to prevent the metal underground sprinker piping from becoming a grounding electrode as the interior sprinker piping is requried to be bonded and NFPA 13 does not prohibit the bonding.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I agree with Mike that NFPA 13 over rides NFPA 70. It is the case of the more specific rule over riding a more general rule. The rule in NFPA 70 is a general rule and the rule in NFPA 13 is a specific rule. The only issue is that the sprinker piping will requrie some type of dielectric fitting where it enters the building to prevent the metal underground sprinker piping from becoming a grounding electrode as the interior sprinker piping is requried to be bonded and NFPA 13 does not prohibit the bonding.
Click to expand...

But where can we find where one over rides the other be it a specific or general rule, that is all I am asking.

BTW, this seems to blow Mikes opinion that the Mods always agree out of the water. ;)


Roger
 
roger said:
But where can we find where one over rides the other be it a specific or general rule, that is all I am asking.

BTW, this seems to blow Mikes opinion that the Mods always agree out of the water. ;)


Roger
Click to expand...
Roger,
This is just what I have been taught about rules of law. Not sure if there is a specific NFPA statement on this. If there is I haven't seen it.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Roger,
This is just what I have been taught about rules of law. Not sure if there is a specific NFPA statement on this. If there is I haven't seen it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Don, just wondering if there was something I didn't know about.

Roger
 
NFPA 13 is a Standard; the NEC (NFPA 70) is a Code. This does not diminish NFPA 13. However, in the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects it does indicate a Code is intended to be enacted into law; whereas, a Standard might not be.

That said, this is exactly where AHJ's responsibility is to resolve conflicts between documents having or appearing to equal "authority." In this case, there is an actual contradiction, not simply one is more restrictive than the other. A genuine resolution can only be made if there is even a more fundamental law (physics or chemistry maybe) to be applied. Otherwise, it is only an arbitrary decision made from ignorance.
 
rbalex said:
NFPA 13 is a Standard; the NEC (NFPA 70) is a Code. This does not diminish NFPA 13. However, in the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects it does indicate a Code is intended to be enacted into law; whereas, a Standard might not be.
Click to expand...

Looking at your link,

Standard - A document, the main text of which contains only mandatory provisions using the word ?shall? to indicate requirements and which is in a form generally suitable for mandatory reference by another standard or code or for adoption into law. Nonmandatory provisions shall be located in an appendix or annex, footnote, or fine-print note and are not to be considered a part of the requirements of a standard.
Click to expand...

A standard sounds more like an Annex to a code (if the code references it) than a code. It sure looks like the NEC wins in a contest - but you would know better than I. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top