Bonding Jumper

[jwelectric]

Back up a few notes and read the definition of bonding jumper. I see no place in the code that says you can't bond any metal to any other metal. You have only pointed out that it is not specifically required

We require a bonding jumper between cold and hot water pipes at the water heater

The question is as an inspector do you require it?

As a contractor I am telling you I aint gonna to do it!

As an inspector I will never tell someone to do something unless I can show them in print that it is required.

 

[jwelectric]

In post ten you posted the commentary of the hand book to enforce the bonding

In post 15 again you reference the commentary which any inspector knows is not enforceable

In post 19 you again use the word “required”

In post 24 you for the second time reference the definition of a wire to state you opinion.

The one thing you haven’t done is address the section of the NEC that says directly where these bonding jumpers are to land. It is found in at least two of the subsections of 250.104

With the deepest of respect please show me verbiage in the NEC that clearly states that anything can be bonded to a water pipe.

 

[gfretwell]

250.104(A) says "water piping" not just "cold water" and it refers to bonding jumpers which are defined an article 100 as "A reliable conductor to ensure the required electrical conductivity between metal parts required to be electrically connected."

The initial connection to the water piping needs to be at one of those 4 places you reference but beyond that you can use bonding jumpers to insure a conductive path.

That is how I read it.

If you, as a contractor, want to do a sub standard job and parse the code to justify it, that is between you and your AHJ. I have seldom seen it work out well for the contractor in the long run tho.

 

[jwelectric]

So if you can’t back you statements with code you will start calling what someone else does substandard.

Until someone can show verbiage that comes close to what used to be in print then it is nothing more than a desire of someone who reads into a statement what they want that statement to read.

In 1975 the NEC was very clear about metal pipes but as anyone can see they know that the NEC has no control over what a plumber does with the water pipes in a building therefore this ridiculous rule was removed from the text of the NEC.

If there are still electrical inspectors doing inspections today that think that they can somehow enforce a plumbing code then I have nothing but pity for them.

 

[ICE]

If there are still electrical inspectors doing inspections today that think that they can somehow enforce a plumbing code then I have nothing but pity for them.

It helps to be a combination inspector.

 

[gfretwell]

JW, I am not sure where you are going here. Someone wants to bond around a non-conductive element that is isolating half of the pipe and you say, not only is it not required but that it is a violation. Then you say they should be running a wire all the way back to the panel from the hot side of the water heater.

Are you saying we don't need to bond "hot" water pipes too (I know you say water sprinkler pipes don't need bonding).

Do you really think 250.104(A) only refers to cold potable water supply pipes from the entrance to the first plastic part? Why even bother?

 

[jwelectric]

I am not saying anything other than what is in print. As an inspector that is all that one has that they can enforce.

The NEC does not say to bond hot and/or cold water pipes, all it says is to bond the piping system.

If there is a water piping system that has both hot and cold connected to a kitchen sink the IPC is very clear that the only water piping system that can be connected to that kitchen sink is potable water.

The only people that I know that calls the hot and cold pipes in a building two different systems is dumb :butt electrical inspectors that has seen something they think is a good idea and want to keep seeing it. They form some dumb idea in their head and claim it is the intent of the code without doing one second of research. When I want to know the intent of a code section I read the ROPs and the ROCs where I can see in print what their thoughts were and not just wildly assume. I would hope that someone charged with doing a compliance check on my work would do the same but we all know that for the most part they just aint gonna cause they don't haveta.

The code making panel in their statement was very clear that if the water piping system is not a 100% total metal piping system then bond by 250.104(B)

5-235 Log #1834 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject

(250.104(A)(1))

____________________________________________________________

Submitter: Mark T. Rochon, Mark J. Rochon Master Electrician

Substantiation: Nonmetallic water piping systems are being inserted between our metal water piping system and today’s code is not recognizing these changes.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The conditions indicated in the substantiation are already covered by 250.104(B) where there is not a complete metallic water piping system.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

5-236 Log #2432 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject

(250.104(A)(1))

____________________________________________________________

Submitter: Robert P. McGann, City of Cambridge

Substantiation: With much expanded use of plastic water piping system(s) isolating section of metal piping systems. This type of installation leaves contractors and inspectors what is required to be bonded.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The requirements of 250.104(A) apply to complete metallic water piping systems. Where there is no complete metallic water piping system, then the requirements of 250.104(B) would apply for those portions of isolated metal water piping system likely to become energized.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

Of course I already know that the world is full of electrical inspectors that claim they know far more than those charged with the writing of the codes and some will even start calling the compliant work substandard in order to prove just how smart they are.

No my friend it is not what I am saying but it is what those who have far more knowledge than I is saying.

 

[jwelectric]

It helps to be a combination inspector.

It sure does. It helps a lot of code enforcement officials get into trouble trying to force one trade to do another trades work. Here is an example; a bath remodel with three contractors involved, the general, plumber, and electrical. A new bath fan was installed and the electrical inspector held the job until the electrician installed the vent pipe. Later the vent pipe accumulated water to the point that it damaged the sheetrock. In court the electrician was fined for doing HVAC work without a license even though he had evidence that it was because of the code official holding the inspection. Needless to say the ex-code official is flipping hamburgers at the local dinner for a living these days. Every once and a while we see this buger maker out back the dinner and he is :banghd

 

[ICE]

It's a crying shame that an electrical inspector lost his job.

Where was the mechanical inspector?

That's a rhetorical question. (Fatboy, that has nothing to do with suppositories.......although, come to think of it, that might be the problem here)

Having all those specialty inspectors can cause confusion.

I got tossed out of a restaurant because I asked the salad waitress to point out the head waitress.

Well it was a bit more involved than that.

Talk about confusion, it was nearly a riot.

But gosh, nobody got canned over it.

So go on then and fire an electrical inspector because he held up a contractor for a fan with no vent. After all, there was damage to drywall. Feel free to gloat but temper your enthusiasm for at any moment, for any trifling reason, you too might be canned.

 

[jwelectric]

Where was the mechanical inspector?

Although a rhetorical question is asked to make a point instead of looking for an answer I just can’t help myself.The electrical inspector was a multi-trade inspector that was asking the electrician who wired the exhaust fan to vent it before he would issue the CC for the electrical. That is what ended up costing him his job.

This was out of bounds of the electrical inspector and if he was going to invoke his mechanical authority it should have been directed to the general not the electrician. It would then been on the general or in this case the handy man to hire a HVAC person to install the vent.

The point of the story was to show that sometimes the multi-trade inspector crosses the line in their inspections. If I remember I think you asked the question if a service change was done and the electrician didn’t draft stop and no general was involved, who would the inspector address the issue of draft stopping with. Myself I would address the same one that hired the electrician just as I would on new work. But then again ………………….. and I understand.

Why would someone ask the salad waitress for the head waitress? I usually go straight to the top and bypass all the ground work myself.

 

[ICE]

It's not as much fun when you don't get it.

 

[jwelectric]

It's a crying shame that an electrical inspector lost his job. Where was the mechanical inspector?

That's a rhetorical question. (Fatboy, that has nothing to do with suppositories.......although, come to think of it, that might be the problem here)

Having all those specialty inspectors can cause confusion.

I got tossed out of a restaurant because I asked the salad waitress to point out the head waitress.

Well it was a bit more involved than that.

Talk about confusion, it was nearly a riot.

But gosh, nobody got canned over it.

So go on then and fire an electrical inspector because he held up a contractor for a fan with no vent. After all, there was damage to drywall. Feel free to gloat but temper your enthusiasm for at any moment, for any trifling reason, you too might be canned.

Nothing I like more than someone to post and get a reply and then go back and edit their post. Why not just make a new post or was it an attempt to make it look like the reply was not directed to the original post?

Two things come to mind. Most code enforcement officials at some point get the “GOD” syndrome and think that they can make the rules to fit their opinions. I have run into this many times over my career.

Most code officials think that the people they are addressing are stupid. They don’t realize that the contractor just might know more about it than they do. I would venture so far as to say that I have forgotten more than a some code enforcement officials will know in their entire life about the NEC. People are people and being a code enforcement official does not change this.

The man should have done his job as the oath he took outlined instead of trying to enforce something that he shouldn’t have.

The code official was directly responsible for the damage to the home due to his own arrogance in requiring a contractor to do something he was not licensed to do and it was done improperly. He should have lost his ability to inspect. In my opinion he is not worthy to work at a car wash.

As to being canned, well with the people holding office this election you may very well be correct. It seems as though they intend to take everything that I have paid in over my career away including my constitutional rights or at least the second one. Thank God that I had the foresight to prepare for my own retirement without the need of SS.

 

[gfretwell]

So you are saying they must run a 4ga (250.66 rated) conductor all the way back to the panel, electrode or gec for the hot water piping, a 14ga to some convenient EGC claiming that is the one you think is likely to energize or just ignore it?

If I go with the likely to energize route, the 10ga EGC in the water heater is a likely bond.

I guess I am confused about what you are saying they have to do in your patch.

I am not saying anything other than what is in print. As an inspector that is all that one has that they can enforce.The NEC does not say to bond hot and/or cold water pipes, all it says is to bond the piping system.

If there is a water piping system that has both hot and cold connected to a kitchen sink the IPC is very clear that the only water piping system that can be connected to that kitchen sink is potable water.

The only people that I know that calls the hot and cold pipes in a building two different systems is dumb :butt electrical inspectors that has seen something they think is a good idea and want to keep seeing it. They form some dumb idea in their head and claim it is the intent of the code without doing one second of research. When I want to know the intent of a code section I read the ROPs and the ROCs where I can see in print what their thoughts were and not just wildly assume. I would hope that someone charged with doing a compliance check on my work would do the same but we all know that for the most part they just aint gonna cause they don't haveta.

The code making panel in their statement was very clear that if the water piping system is not a 100% total metal piping system then bond by 250.104(B)

5-235 Log #1834 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject

(250.104(A)(1))

____________________________________________________________

Submitter: Mark T. Rochon, Mark J. Rochon Master Electrician

Substantiation: Nonmetallic water piping systems are being inserted between our metal water piping system and today’s code is not recognizing these changes.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The conditions indicated in the substantiation are already covered by 250.104(B) where there is not a complete metallic water piping system.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

5-236 Log #2432 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject

(250.104(A)(1))

____________________________________________________________

Submitter: Robert P. McGann, City of Cambridge

Substantiation: With much expanded use of plastic water piping system(s) isolating section of metal piping systems. This type of installation leaves contractors and inspectors what is required to be bonded.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement: The requirements of 250.104(A) apply to complete metallic water piping systems. Where there is no complete metallic water piping system, then the requirements of 250.104(B) would apply for those portions of isolated metal water piping system likely to become energized.

Number Eligible to Vote: 15

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 15

Of course I already know that the world is full of electrical inspectors that claim they know far more than those charged with the writing of the codes and some will even start calling the compliant work substandard in order to prove just how smart they are.

No my friend it is not what I am saying but it is what those who have far more knowledge than I is saying.

 

[jwelectric]

So you are saying they must run a 4ga (250.66 rated) conductor all the way back to the panel, electrode or gec for the hot water piping, a 14ga to some convenient EGC claiming that is the one you think is likely to energize or just ignore it?If I go with the likely to energize route, the 10ga EGC in the water heater is a likely bond.

I guess I am confused about what you are saying they have to do in your patch.

It is not my patch unless you are calling everywhere that the National Electrical Code is adopted my patch. It is not what I am saying it is what the Code Making Panel is saying.There is nothing to energize the pipe unless it is connected to something that uses power and is connected to the pipe therefore if it is not 100% total metal then yes the #10 in the branch circuit that supplies the electric water heater does the bonding and in the event it is a gas water heater then do nothing.

All this bonding that happens between the hot and cold at the water heater is perpetuated by a bunch of uneducated folks from years gone by. All one has to do is read and the education is easy.

The problem is most will ask until they find someone that agrees with them and just because the two agree it makes everyone who disagrees wrong. I spend most of my free time reading about the NEC and its history instead of asking the internet to do it for me. This makes understanding things like this much easier.

 

[jwelectric]

The hot and cold does not constitute two separate plumbing systems. They are part of the same potable water system. We have potable water, gray water, and waste water systems that might be in a building.

The rule to make metal plumbing pipes electrically continuous is no longer in the NEC. It was removed in the late 1970s. The code making panel figured out that they had no control over the metal water pipes in a building and the plumbing codes allowed the repair of a metal water pipe to be done with non-metallic parts.

The plumber in most of the country was not allowed to install the bond as he did not have an electrical contractor’s license and to impose on the homeowner the cost of hiring two tradesmen was not going to happen.

 

[gfretwell]

The plumber in most of the country was not allowed to install the bond as he did not have an electrical contractor’s license and to impose on the homeowner the cost of hiring two tradesmen was not going to happen.

That is just the insanity brought to us by unions. In the rational world we have lots of trades connecting up bonding jumpers. 99% of the Ufers here are installed by the concrete steel guy and inspected by the structural inspector.

For that matter most water heaters are installed without a permit anyway.

Let's get down to the bottom line. If you saw a 250.66 bond wire around a water heater, would you make them remove it?

 

[jwelectric]

That is just the insanity brought to us by unions.

Codes and adopted law not unions

In the rational world we have lots of trades connecting up bonding jumpers. 99% of the Ufers here are installed by the concrete steel guy and inspected by the structural inspector.

This is due to the lousy complacent inspection department not because it is legal. Just because an inspection department will not follow the rules in no way makes something compliant or legal. Why are you allowing someone to bury someone else in a concrete footer for? Oh, you mean a concrete encased electrode, I think?

For that matter most water heaters are installed without a permit anyway.

In new work?

Let's get down to the bottom line. If you saw a 250.66 bond wire around a water heater, would you make them remove it?

I will enforce any non-compliant installation, isn’t that my job?Now let’s get down to the bottom line. Do you require a bond between the hot and cold at the water heater?

 

[tmurray]

Most code officials think that the people they are addressing are stupid. They don’t realize that the contractor just might know more about it than they do. I would venture so far as to say that I have forgotten more than a some code enforcement officials will know in their entire life about the NEC. People are people and being a code enforcement official does not change this. The man should have done his job as the oath he took outlined instead of trying to enforce something that he shouldn’t have.

The code official was directly responsible for the damage to the home due to his own arrogance in requiring a contractor to do something he was not licensed to do and it was done improperly. He should have lost his ability to inspect. In my opinion he is not worthy to work at a car wash.

It does not help your case of calling out the intelligence of inspectors when you make absolute statements about what "most" inspectors do based on your own self-fulfilling prophecy. Secondly, we get it, you have a problem with authority and don't like inspectors because they can tell you what to do. Third, second hand stories of inspectors over-stepping authority don't hold much weight. The inspector may have said "I can't pass this until the vent is installed." and the electrician interpreted that to mean that he had to install it. Unless you were there you have no idea and even then our memories can be very tricky. Finally, we don't follow the NEC here as I'm in Canada, so forgive me if I don't completely grasp the problem, but what you are saying is that since the code does not allow that piping system to be bonded to another, it must be bonded independently or run to the cold water bond. Now this may be different there as you are using a different code, but we have what is called "Alternate Solutions". An Alternate Solution means you can take the intent of the code and provide a solution that varies from the code that the building official can consider code compliant. It appears that this is what is occurring here.

 

[jwelectric]

It does not help your case of calling out the intelligence of inspectors when you make absolute statements about what "most" inspectors do based on your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

I have been teaching the state mandated classes at the community college for electrical inspectors for 12 years now so it not based on self-fulfilling anything but what I have seen over the years.Then we have discussion forums such as this one that puts the cap on the lid

Secondly, we get it, you have a problem with authority and don't like inspectors because they can tell you what to do.

There it is in a nut shell. They cannot tell me what to do although it seems like some think they can. They can only enforce the adopted codes. They have no more authority than the contractor.

Third, second hand stories of inspectors over-stepping authority don't hold much weight. The inspector may have said "I can't pass this until the vent is installed." and the electrician interpreted that to mean that he had to install it. Unless you were there you have no idea and even then our memories can be very tricky.

No my memory is not flawed and yes I know for a fact. The inspectors here have to write things down and once that is done the hearsay goes out the window.

Finally, we don't follow the NEC here as I'm in Canada, so forgive me if I don't completely grasp the problem, but what you are saying is that since the code does not allow that piping system to be bonded to another, it must be bonded independently or run to the cold water bond. Now this may be different there as you are using a different code, but we have what is called "Alternate Solutions". An Alternate Solution means you can take the intent of the code and provide a solution that varies from the code that the building official can consider code compliant. It appears that this is what is occurring here.

Well one thing I am glad about is that here in good ole North Carolina a code official does not have this lead way. Here they take an oath to God to enforce what that is in print. Personally I will not design the electricians installation as that would be a very large liability on me.

 

[tmurray]

I have been teaching the state mandated classes at the community college for electrical inspectors for 12 years now so it not based on self-fulfilling anything but what I have seen over the years.Then we have discussion forums such as this one that puts the cap on the lid

There it is in a nut shell. They cannot tell me what to do although it seems like some think they can. They can only enforce the adopted codes. They have no more authority than the contractor.

No my memory is not flawed and yes I know for a fact. The inspectors here have to write things down and once that is done the hearsay goes out the window.

Well one thing I am glad about is that here in good ole North Carolina a code official does not have this lead way. Here they take an oath to God to enforce what that is in print. Personally I will not design the electricians installation as that would be a very large liability on me.

FYI; your state's inspectors =/= ALL inspectors.

We write corrections down here as well, but it seems highly suspect that an inspector would designate who was to preform the work, not just that work had to be complete prior to the completion of the inspection. For instance; we require a working kitchen faucet in dwellings. Should a faucet be non-functional I would write that the faucet must be operational as one of my deficiencies. This report is then given to the GC, who in turn calls the plumber to complete the work. If a contractor misinterprets that to mean that he himself must correct the violation then that is his problem. If the inspector designated who was to do the work I'm sorry, but that seams really stupid and I can't wrap my head around someone doing that, or that the electrician would go ahead and try to do it, not knowing anything about how to complete the work.

Just to correct a misinterpretation; while an Alternate Solution is ultimately approved or denied by the code official, they are typically proposed by industry experts or labs who have done significant testing and/or calculations for an assembly/method/product. Most of the liability remains at the feet of the expert. All the code official is responsible for is if they appear to be in compliance. I know for a fact that many areas in the US do accept these from when I worked for a fire protection engineer.

I am dismayed that you do not have enough faith in the education system that you are a part of to produce individuals capable of logical comparison between different practices and products.

 

[gfretwell]

I will enforce any non-compliant installation, isn’t that my job?Now let’s get down to the bottom line. Do you require a bond between the hot and cold at the water heater?

That wasn't the question

Would you make someone remove a jumper if it was there?

Quote Originally Posted by gfretwell View PostThat is just the insanity brought to us by unions.

Codes and adopted law not unions

... but it was the unions who drove the laws where they exist.

 

[jwelectric]

Here in NC the electrician calls the electrical inspector, the plumber calls the plumbing inspector, the HVAC calls the mechanical inspector and the general calls the building inspector.

The electrical inspector inspects the electrical and reports to the electrician and the plumbing inspector reports to the plumber so on and so forth.

As an electrician should I call for an electrical inspection and the “electrical” inspector write up a violation that violation would be directed to me the electrician and not to anyone else as I am the license holder.

We have many electrical inspectors that will write up draft stop on the electrician and hold the inspection till the draft stop is installed even though there is no mention of draft stop in the NEC. Draft stop is a building code issue and should be address by the building inspector to the general and not the electrical inspector to the electrician.

The electrical inspector who was a multi-trade inspector wrote the violation of the exhaust pipe on his electrical report which was addressed toward the electrical contractor and held the electrical inspection. The electrical contractor wanting to pass the inspection and get his certificate of compliance on the electrical then done as requested by the inspector and installed the vent pipe which brought up a law suit.

The electrical inspector has no authority to hold an electrical inspection due to the lack of work of another trade such as the vent pipe. He should have passed the electrical as no other faults were found with the electrical and if he had a problem with the vent he should have took it up with the general contractor.

As an inspector the installation must meet the letter of our adopted code. Should there be a need for an alternate method then I will pass that decision on to someone with more authority than me as I will not assume the liability of passing something that does not meet the letter of the code.

As to education, I have been directly involved with my state’s office of the fire marshal concerning education of inspectors in NC. I am certified to teach both the required three Levels of electrical inspection classes as well as continuing education of electrical inspectors. I for one think that the continuing education for both electrical contractors and inspectors should be based on the passing of a test at no less than every 12 months but alas it hasn’t happened in this state as yet.

 

[jwelectric]

That wasn't the question Would you make someone remove a jumper if it was there?

Not enough information to answer your question. If I found a short piece of copper between the pipes only at the water heater yes it would get removed before it would get my signature. The NEC is clear where a bonding jumper is to land and from one pipe to the other is not found anywhere in the NEC.

Now answer my question, do you require one to be installed between hot and cold at a water heater?

... but it was the unions who drove the laws where they exist.

You are mistaken on this.

 

[globe trekker]

Draft stop is a building code issue and should be address by the building inspector to the general and not the electrical inspector to the electrician.

What about Article 300.21, 2008 NEC? Also, if you as the electrical contractor of record penetrates

a rated assembly with your electrical conduit / conductors / other, the general contractor is then

responsible for repairing your work?

.