Results 1 to 38 of 38
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    885

    Default VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Having been an inspector of road & bridge construction in the '70's, Rule number one for any Contractor is "Don't P----Off the inspector" This house was built in 2004 with all CPVC water pipes. Supply from meter is PVC. There are only 3 pieces of copper water pipe visible in the house. Water heater stubs (2) and the piece shown in the picture. Now, in this area in 2004, the building inspectors were way too busy to force an issue like this. Think somebody argued with the inspector about something and really ticked the inspector off? That would be a good reason to require "Electrical Bonding" a plastic pipe system.

    Similar Threads:
    ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images ***IMPORTANT*** You Need To Register To View Images
    Last edited by Stuart Brooks; 04-13-2009 at 02:50 PM. Reason: Spelling
    Inspection Referral SOC
    The above statements are expressed solely as my opinion and in all probability will conflict with someone else's.
    Stu, Fredericksburg VA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    601

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    The requirement for bonding metallic pipe includes the wording "likely to become energized". There is also a requirement that a pipe used as an electrode be in contact with the earth for at least 10 feet.

    Unless the water heater is electric, in which case the stubs would be bonded by the water heater ground anyway, there is no reason to bond any of these pipes and no justification in the NEC for doing so. Personally, I'd drag any jurisdiction requiring this into court regardless of the inspector's level of being ticked at something.

    With this being present only on this one house and the total stupidity involved, I'd suspect an overzealous homeowner. Although some electricians aren't into pretty, the job doesn't look like an electrician did it.


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    885

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Gas Water Heater right next to this baby. The time and cost to go through a code review process might be significantly more than making the inspector happy. Homeowner handiwork? Always a possibility. House is foreclosure with a recirculating sump pump and basement waste pump that doesn't work. I found that out after running water in the basement bathroom during inspection.

    The above statements are expressed solely as my opinion and in all probability will conflict with someone else's.
    Stu, Fredericksburg VA

  4. #4
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    As has already been stated above, I agree with the wording in 250.104(B) that permits the EGC to act as the bonding conductor for these short pieces that are determined (by the code official) to be "likely to be energized".

    I think in the picture provided there is evidence of the code enforcement official actually requiring something that is against code.

    If one carefully reads 250.52(A)(1) and thinks about it, these short sections of interior piping have been made a part of the grounding electrode system by the conductor that intentionally is run to connect to the GES where it may originate in the panelboard.

    In other words a GEC run from the GES out to these short sections of piping is at variance with these words found in the NEC at 250.52(A)(1): "Interior metal water piping located more than 5 feet from the point of entrance to the building shall not be used as a part of the GES or as a conductor to interconnect electrodes that are a part of the GES."

    Based on this, I would argue that the building official has acted outside the scope and intent of the NEC which is designed as a safety standard intended to minimize hazards, not increase them.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Metal water piping "system" is the phrase the NEC uses.

    From the 2008 NEC, but relatively unchanged for a very long time. (bold and underlining are mine)
    - 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).
    - - - (2) Buildings of Multiple Occupancy. (blah, blah, blah - i.e., not applicable to this discussion)
    - - - (3) Multiple Buildings or Structures Supplied by a Feeder(s) or Branch Circuit(s). (blah, blah, blah - i.e., not applicable to this discussion)

    I have seen inspectors who read "A) Metal Water Piping." and read no further (at least that is the best I could figure out how they got what they were thinking). Reading just a little further puts the word "system" into play and then one must determine and define what one considers a "system" to be.

    I South Florida it was basically acknowledged that "more than 5 feet" makes a "system". The reason for that "5 feet" dimension was that many plumbers would plumb a house with CPVC or PB (back then, not it would be PEX), run to the tub valve, then use copper from the tub valve to the shower head, but that in no way is a "system".

    Other plumbers would run PB or CPVC (or now PEX) under the slab and stub up through the slab, running copper throughout the house, in those cases each of the copper piping "systems" were indeed separate "metal water piping systems" which each required bonding. I brought that up to the Chief Electrical Code Compliance Official at the Board of Rules and Appeals way back when and he went out, looked at the installation, and said to me ' You are correct. Each of those are separate "metal water piping systems" and are required to be bonded. ', the electrician, who came out with us, tried to say ' No way, I don't have to bond all that copper ... ' the Chief Electrical Code Compliance Official looked at him and said ' Yes you do. ', then added ' Look at that piping a minute, there are two bathrooms right here plumbed together in copper, that definitely "is a system", and then over on the other side, the entire master bathroom is plumbed in all copper, and that is another "system", and the two baths upstairs are plumbed in copper, that is another "system". Are you trying to tell me all that plumbing piping is not a "system", and that there are not several separate "systems" here? '

    We then looked up the bonding requirements for the bonding conductor size to see what size conductor the electrician had to run to each "metal water piping system" as a properly sized bonding conductor.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  6. #6
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote:"There are only 3 pieces of copper water pipe visible in the house. Water heater stubs (2) and the piece shown in the picture."

    The water heater stubs and the short piece shown in the picture do not make a "system" of metal piping. They are only short nipples/sections/lengths, etc., and as such if they can be considered "Likely to be energized" by the AHJ, the EGC of the water heater branch circuit would take care of the copper stubs, but this short section shown in the picture does not qualify as a grounding electrode, yet it is connected to the GEC system by means of the jumper. I maintain it's in violation as noted in my post above.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Warner View Post
    this short section shown in the picture does not qualify as a grounding electrode, yet it is connected to the GEC system by means of the jumper.
    Is it a bonding conductor or the grounding electrode conductor?

    And, if the grounding electrode conductor is not broken, is there a prohibition of using it as a bonding conductor?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  8. #8
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Is it a bonding conductor or the grounding electrode conductor?

    And, if the grounding electrode conductor is not broken, is there a prohibition of using it as a bonding conductor?
    I'm interpreting the conductor that connects the short section of pipe -with the water valve attached - to be a grounding electrode conductor, since there is nothing in the code that requires this short piece of metal pipe to be bonded. (It's not a "system".) And since it's being used as a grounding electrode, it's in violation as noted above. What do you think?


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Warner View Post
    And since it's being used as a grounding electrode, it's in violation as noted above. What do you think?

    That's the part I guess I keep missing ... where it has been stated that it is being used as such?

    However, is there a prohibition from bonding any grounding conductor to that for whatever grounding purpose?

    As long as it is understood that short section of copper pipe is NEITHER a "metal water piping SYSTEM" nor a "grounding ELECTRODE", is there a prohibition against doing "bonding it"?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  10. #10
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    .............
    As long as it is understood that short section of copper pipe is NEITHER a "metal water piping SYSTEM" nor a "grounding ELECTRODE", is there a prohibition against doing "bonding it"?
    That's a great question. How would you answer it?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Warner View Post
    That's a great question. How would you answer it?

    I asked you first.

    Okay, I know of no prohibition against it.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Think of it this way: Is there a prohibition against "bonding" to a CPVC pipe? Other than it is not "bonding"?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  13. #13
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Think of it this way: Is there a prohibition against "bonding" to a CPVC pipe? Other than it is not "bonding"?
    Jerry, will you please cut and paste the section 250.52 (A)(1) (2008) here for others to see and comment on? You don't really need to post the lengthy exception, because that does not apply.
    I'd like to have us all discuss this with your indulgence. Thanks in advance.


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Done.

    From the 2008 NEC.
    - 250.52 Grounding Electrodes.
    - - (A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding.
    - - - (1) Metal Underground Water Pipe. A metal underground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0 m (10 ft) or more (including any metal well casing 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 and the bonding conductors. Interior metal water piping located more than 1.52 m (5 ft) from the point of entrance to the building shall not be used as a part of the grounding electrode system or as a conductor to interconnect electrodes that are part of the grounding electrode system.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Fred,

    What is the difference between bonding that short piece of copper within CPVC and bonding to a piece of CPVC?

    It does make a difference, what, difference and why?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  16. #16
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Done.

    From the 2008 NEC.
    - 250.52 Grounding Electrodes.
    - - (A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding.
    - - - (1) Metal Underground Water Pipe. A metal underground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0 m (10 ft) or more (including any metal well casing 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 and the bonding conductors. Interior metal water piping located more than 1.52 m (5 ft) from the point of entrance to the building shall not be used as a part of the grounding electrode system or as a conductor to interconnect electrodes that are part of the grounding electrode system.
    Thanks, Jerry.

    When someone connects a short piece of metallic piping that is not a "system", such as the short section of pipe in the picture, with a conductor all the way back to where the grounding electrode system originates, is this now not made a part of the grounding electrode system?


  17. #17
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Fred,

    What is the difference between bonding that short piece of copper within CPVC and bonding to a piece of CPVC?

    It does make a difference, what, difference and why?
    Jerry, I'm thinking this is all related to the conductivity of the water as well as the short section of piping. There is direction introduced into the '08 code at 680.26(C).


  18. #18
    Ted Menelly's Avatar
    Ted Menelly Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Warner View Post
    Jerry, I'm thinking this is all related to the conductivity of the water as well as the short section of piping. There is direction introduced into the '08 code at 680.26(C).

    I know everyone always just thinks of the piping but I always add to what is inside it as well. Water sure do make a good conductor.


  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Warner View Post
    When someone connects a short piece of metallic piping that is not a "system", such as the short section of pipe in the picture, with a conductor all the way back to where the grounding electrode system originates, is this now not made a part of the grounding electrode system?
    Fred,

    As in "what part" of the grounding electrode system?

    It is not a part of the grounding electrode conductor.

    It is not a grounding electrode, nor is it part of one.

    Is it any different, other than being slightly larger, a metal support and securing strap clamped onto a bare grounding electrode conductor?

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Fred,

    What is the difference between bonding that short piece of copper within CPVC and bonding to a piece of CPVC?

    It does make a difference, what, difference and why?
    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Warner View Post
    Jerry, I'm thinking this is all related to the conductivity of the water as well as the short section of piping. There is direction introduced into the '08 code at 680.26(C).
    Being is the CPVC cannot in any way be considered as being bonded to, at most ... at most is may serve as a securing and supporting point, otherwise it may be nothing of substance or consequence.

    With the piece of copper, and with the grounding electrode conductor or a bonding conductor - either of which is intended to carry fault current, the copper can be considered as likely to become energized (by the conductor attached to it) and therefore the bonding clamp would be required to be a proper bonding clamp. It could become a Catch 22 - do not bond to it and nothing is required, not even bonding to it, but once bonded to, it then becomes required to be bonded to which requires being done properly.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Menelly View Post
    Water sure do make a good conductor.

    Water makes a conductor, but not a good conductor.

    You can run water and put your multimeter in the stream of water and measure the resistance of that stream of water.

    At one presentation I made many years ago demonstrating voltage drop I took several paper bowls, taped two bare copper wires to them only an inch or so apart, and plugged it into a 120 volt outlet with one wire continuous to my lamp socket and the other wire connected as stated in the bowls.

    I could not even light a 60 watt lamp due to the resistance in the water and the voltage drop each water filled bowl caused. Dang thing (the lamp) would not even glow dimly. Guess I provided my voltage drop point well beyond what I had planned. And demonstrated that water is not a real good conductor at the same time.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    885

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Water is not a good conductor by itself. It is the salt and mineral content that creates an electolyte

    The above statements are expressed solely as my opinion and in all probability will conflict with someone else's.
    Stu, Fredericksburg VA

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Fred,

    I'll break this down into sections:
    From the 2008 NEC.
    - 250.52 Grounding Electrodes. (Jerry's note: This is defining the "grounding electrodes".)
    - - (A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding. (Jerry's note: This is defining the "permitted electrodes" suitable for use as a "grounding electrode".)
    - - - (1) Metal Underground Water Pipe. A metal underground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0 m (10 ft) or more (including any metal well casing 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 and the bonding conductors. (Jerry's note: This is defining that a metal underground water pipe which is at least 10 feet in length electrically continuous and in contact with at least 10 feet of earth, and, additionally, up to another 5 feet into the structure can be used for the connection point to that metal underground water pipe.)
    - - - Interior metal water piping located more than 1.52 m (5 ft) from the point of entrance to the building shall not be used as a part of the grounding electrode system or as a conductor to interconnect electrodes that are part of the grounding electrode system. (Jerry's note: This is saying that interior metal water piping - as opposed to 'a metal water pipe piece or fitting - which is located more than 5 feet in from the point of entrance shall not be used as a part of the metal underground water pipe electrode nor may it be used to connect two approved grounding electrodes together.)

    That short piece of copper pipe and that valve do not, as we have already established, constitute "interior metal water PIPING", as in "piping system", nor is that piece being used as a part of the metal underground water pipe nor is it being used to connect to approved electrodes together.

    Therefore there is no prohibition against using that as a 'tie off for securing and support' as is required.

    However, being as that short piece of copper *IS* metal and *IS NOW* connected to that bonding/grounding electrode conductor (whichever it may be), that piece of copper is now subject to becoming energized and a proper "bonding/grounding clamp" must be used.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    601

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    The intent of the NEC is that metal pipe in a residence that is LIKELY to become energized be bonded. Whether or not the likely to become energized pipe is a system is irrelevant - a system would include the likely to be energized pipe. What becomes unclear when requiring just a "system" to be bonded is what percentage of the pipe has to be metal to be a system. That's why "likely" is used.

    Water heaters, dishwashers, and furnaces are bonded with the equipment ground. Metal pipes in other areas in close proximity with wiring (think a nail or screw touching the pipe and wire) is what is intended to be protected. The mix of pipe and wire where this generally happens is in kitchen sink areas, bathrooms, electric water heaters, furnaces, and laundries.

    The chunk of pipe with the valve isn't a grounding electrode and not likely to energized. Even more pathetic is bonding 2 short pieces of pipe connected to a water heater. If there was a plastic pipe to the water heater with no metal stubs the tank wouldn't be bonded, but because there are two 6" pieces of pipe on top it is?

    Failure of a neutral in the service at this residence would place line voltage on that water valve and water heater. Grounding electrode and bonding conductors require separate support so using the pipe and valve to support the wire is a violation if that is in fact what they're doing.

    As to a proper clamp needing to be installed, the installation would be safer if the clamp was rubber, but better if removed entirely.


  25. #25
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh View Post
    ............................
    Failure of a neutral in the service at this residence would place line voltage on that water valve and water heater. .
    Please explain. I thought that if the neutral fails, the phases would try to balance the return currents and of course, be unable to do so, resulting in over and under voltages depending on resistances, etc..


  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh View Post
    As to a proper clamp needing to be installed, the installation would be safer if the clamp was rubber, but better if removed entirely.
    Bill,

    "the installation would be safer if the clamp was rubber"

    Correct, except that it is not, and, because it is not, then it needs to be "properly bonded".

    Surely you can see the difference in being bonded (with a metal connection of any type) and not being bonded (with no metal connection of any type).

    "but better if removed entirely"

    Yep, I said that too, but, it is, so ...

    Of course, then, that conductor would need to be "secured and supported" in some other manner.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Warner View Post
    Please explain. I thought that if the neutral fails, the phases would try to balance the return currents and of course, be unable to do so, resulting in over and under voltages depending on resistances, etc..
    Fred,

    I don't understand Bill there either.

    The water heater is already at 240 volts, with no neutral, so, removing the neutral would not do anything to the water heater.

    With the center point grounding removed or poor (bad neutral), then all 120 volt circuits would be center point floating and the voltage across the various loads on each phase leg would be dependent on the resistance/inductance of the loads on each phase leg. One could easily have 65 volts on one 120 volt load while another 120 volt load has the remaining 175 volts.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    601

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    I never said the water heater was electric. The OP said it was gas. I said that IF all the pipe to the water heater was plastic there would be no bond and asked why a couple of 6" stubs would now make a bond required (they don't). I also stated it was stupid to bond an isolated piece of copper in a non metallic pipe system where it isn't likely to become energized, and, in the event of a neutral failure, this pipe would now have a potential to ground on it.

    Ask any plumber that has gotten a jolt pulling a water meter on a metallic piped system whether or not a service neutral failure puts voltage on a ground. (current estimates are this happens once a day in the US and some involve fatalities) IF the valve was next to a circuit conductor or a feeder and framing was present and things arranged so that they would allow a nail or screw to penetrate both the cable and touch the pipe then a bond would be required by code. Until those things happen a bond isn't required and shouldn't be installed.

    I was trying to make a simple point here. You do not bond stuff that doesn't need to be bonded because you can cause more problems than you think you are solving. If you touch a metal sink with a potential to ground (failed service neutral) while standing on a dry floor in a kitchen you may get a tingle. If you touch that water heater or water valve while, for example, kneeling to light the pilot and the floor is damp, you can get nailed pretty good - up to and including dead. A metallic pipe system that included a buried metal supply line would hopefully reduce this potential but no guarantee. There are rules for bonding isolated metal around swimming pools but different rules (and reasons) apply in that circumstance.

    There is ample reading material available on the web that will explain why there will be voltage present on neutral and ground conductors (and everything hooked to the ground buss in the panel) in a panel in the event of a failure of the service neutral before or at the panel.


  29. #29
    Ted Menelly's Avatar
    Ted Menelly Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    For those that think water is such a lousy conductor I suggest you stand soaking wet in the rain with a somewhat flodded street and have the power line come down and hit the nice wet road within any close proximity of you and see what happens

    I have a friend that lived to tell about it. That is, when he was able to speak again. Don't do your little tests and tought how pour a conductor water is. You will be proved wrong sooner or later by someone that fried and lived or possibly died.


  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Menelly View Post
    For those that think water is such a lousy conductor I suggest you stand soaking wet in the rain with a somewhat flodded street and have the power line come down and hit the nice wet road within any close proximity of you and see what happens

    Ted,

    Water is not a good conductor, whether or not it is can be a good conductor under certain circumstances is not the same thing.

    Submerse yourself in water and spread the water out over a large area and the shear surface area increases conductivity by reducing resistance in the same what that a #10 AWG copper conductor is larger than a #14 AWG copper conductor yet has less resistance and is therefore a better conductor.

    At some point, making things "better" will allow them to work. Such as in the case you described.

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  31. #31
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh View Post
    I never said the water heater was electric. The OP said it was gas. I said that IF all the pipe to the water heater was plastic there would be no bond and asked why a couple of 6" stubs would now make a bond required (they don't). I also stated it was stupid to bond an isolated piece of copper in a non metallic pipe system where it isn't likely to become energized, .......
    I agree with the above, although the word "stupid" I would change to "unnecessary".

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh View Post
    ...and, in the event of a neutral failure, this pipe would now have a potential to ground on it.
    I think it terms of neutral failure as no neutral connection. The most likely way for a neutral conductor to energize plumbing is through return current being improperly imposed on the equipment grounding conductor(s).

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh View Post
    Ask any plumber that has gotten a jolt pulling a water meter on a metallic piped system whether or not a service neutral failure puts voltage on a ground. (current estimates are this happens once a day in the US and some involve fatalities)..........
    Here I would again say "unintentional connection of return current to equipment grounding conductors, frames of motors, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh View Post
    ....IF the valve was next to a circuit conductor or a feeder and framing was present and things arranged so that they would allow a nail or screw to penetrate both the cable and touch the pipe then a bond would be required by code. Until those things happen a bond isn't required and shouldn't be installed.
    I agree, as this could reasonably be defined as "likely to become energized".


  32. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Kriegh View Post
    Ask any plumber that has gotten a jolt pulling a water meter on a metallic piped system whether ...
    That only happens to stupid plumbers who do not take the every day and well know precaution of installing a bonding strap around the water meter.

    I'm not implying that any plumber "who forgets" to do that is stupid, all people make mistakes, only that any plumber who "routinely does that as a practice" - usually because it takes them an extra 3 minutes, tops, to do it - they are putting THEMSELVES to a KNOWN RISK, and THAT IS STUPID. Which, naturally, makes them stupid. To knowingly put yourself at risk for a known risk can only be described as stupid, not unlike playing Russian Roulette, only using a semi-automatic pistol instead of using a revolver ...

    I was trying to make a simple point here. You do not bond stuff that doesn't need to be bonded because you can cause more problems than you think you are solving.
    Not really. You could bond EVERYTHING which is 'bondable' (is that even a word) and there should not be any problems.

    There are rules for bonding isolated metal around swimming pools but different rules (and reasons) apply in that circumstance.

    There is ample reading material available on the web that will explain why there will be voltage present on neutral and ground conductors (and everything hooked to the ground buss in the panel) in a panel in the event of a failure of the service neutral before or at the panel.
    Actually, the rules and reasons are not all that different, and the intent is basically the same. With the rest of the house you are trying to bond everything to ground, that allows two things: 1) a current path to trip or blow the overcurrent device; 2) it would also put the sink at the same potential as the metal piping at the same potential as the refrigerator cabinet as the stove cabinet as the ... all items connected to ground (bonded to ground) would be at the same ground potential - yes, it would all be at a different potential than the hot phase conductors, but it is anyway.

    With a swimming pool the intent is to create that same equipotential bonding grid where everything you touch within that 5 foot out by 12 foot high box and anything which is part of the water circulation system is at the same potential. Not unlike the full grounding grid in the house described in the above paragraph. The difference, though, as that the pool bonding grid in not intended to trip or blow the overcurrent device, that is the main basic difference. In both cases you are trying to create an all encompassing equipotential grid, one at ground (all throughout the house) and one at whatever level the grid finds itself (around the pool).

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  33. #33
    Bill Walker's Avatar
    Bill Walker Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Was the electrical system properly grounded?


  34. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    885

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Walker View Post
    Was the electrical system properly grounded?
    Yep.
    Well, I will expand that response to say that the electrical system appeared to be properly grounded using a ground rod.

    The above statements are expressed solely as my opinion and in all probability will conflict with someone else's.
    Stu, Fredericksburg VA

  35. #35
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Assuming that the service is grounded to ground rod(s) and that the service neutral is bonded to the grounding electrode system, I maintain that the additional conductor that originates at the small section of copper piping (with the water valve) and terminates at the grounded conductor/grounding electrode conductor connection is a grounding electrode conductor (if it were a equipment grounding conductor, it would be a part of a branch circuit or feeder)...(if it were a bonding conductor, it would be interconnecting other pipes/metal objects)...this is directly connected to the GES in such a manner as to extend the GES and, IMHO violates 250.52(A)(1).


  36. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Ormond Beach, Florida
    Posts
    26,245

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred Warner View Post
    I maintain that the additional conductor that originates at the small section of copper piping (with the water valve)

    Fred,

    I've been going on the presumption that that conductor does not terminate nor originate at that small pipe section and valve, that the conductor is just a way point there on its way elsewhere.

    I could be wrong, have been wrong before, and certainly will be wrong again.

    I guess now is a good time to bring up another point/question: is that clamp a proper water pipe clamp made for use on copper piping? That clamp appears to be made from aluminum casting or aluminum stock??

    Jerry Peck, Construction / Litigation Consultant
    Construction Litigation Consultants, LLC ( www.ConstructionLitigationConsultants.com )
    www.AskCodeMan.com

  37. #37
    Fred Warner's Avatar
    Fred Warner Guest

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Peck View Post
    Fred,

    I've been going on the presumption that that conductor does not terminate nor originate at that small pipe section and valve, that the conductor is just a way point there on its way elsewhere.

    I could be wrong, have been wrong before, and certainly will be wrong again.

    I guess now is a good time to bring up another point/question: is that clamp a proper water pipe clamp made for use on copper piping? That clamp appears to be made from aluminum casting or aluminum stock??
    I'm betting that the aluminum conductor is cut off a few inches below the bottom of the picture. (towards the bottom of the furnace).

    I'm also betting that the grounding electrode clamp is rated co/alu.


  38. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    601

    Default Re: VERY Strict Building Inspector

    They may exist, but I've never seen a zinc or aluminum ground clamp that wasn't rated for copper pipe. Most brass clamps aren't listed for aluminum wire though. At least they got that part right.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •