• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Just the Concrete Encased Electrode

jar546 said:
When I owned and ran my own third-party inspection agency in PA, we cared, we did a great job and held everyone to the same standard. That is why it was difficult to keep contracts because it was a race to the bottom that I was unwilling to participate in. I had some really good municipalities that understood the importance, ...but the rest were clueless and just wanted favors for friends. It is difficult to compete against a third-party inspection agency that has a culture of doing as little as possible, to create as little of a wake in the pool as possible with guys that are good at taking tests but don't have the testicular fortitude to do their job and actually enforce the codes. Their incentive is to get a percentage of the permit fees while doing as little as possible, and kissing as much a%$ as possible by letting things go that upset the elected officials while being chalk full of excuses as to why they weren't or did not have to actually do their job.
It's why I am no longer there..................................................................or am I?
Click to expand...
This was poorly worded on my part. I meant there isn't extrinsic motivation. Naturally, there is always intrinsic motivation, however, as you've mentioned, economics does place a lot of pressure in intrinsic motivations.
 
steveray said:
In fact it is required to be bonded
Click to expand...
Above ground metal gas piping is not always required to be bonded. Both the NEC and IFGC state that it needs to be bonded if it is "likely to become energized." And the NEC specifies that if it is a branch circuit that is likely to energize the metal gas piping, then the branch circuit EGC can be used for bonding. The most likely scenario for this is an appliance that uses both gas and electricity, in which case the appliance itself is likely (required by the listing standard?) to do the necessary bonding.

But if you have a gas appliance with no electrical supply, such a natural draft water heater with a standing pilot light, and the gas piping does not cross over any electrical wiring, the gas piping is not likely to become energized, and no bonding is required.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Above ground metal gas piping is not always required to be bonded. Both the NEC and IFGC state that it needs to be bonded if it is "likely to become energized." And the NEC specifies that if it is a branch circuit that is likely to energize the metal gas piping, then the branch circuit EGC can be used for bonding. The most likely scenario for this is an appliance that uses both gas and electricity, in which case the appliance itself is likely (required by the listing standard?) to do the necessary bonding.

But if you have a gas appliance with no electrical supply, such a natural draft water heater with a standing pilot light, and the gas piping does not cross over any electrical wiring, the gas piping is not likely to become energized, and no bonding is required.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
This has been discussed at many IAEI meetings. Electrical inspectors do not know the inner workings of every gas appliance, and every gas appliance does not have electricity. It has therefore been collectively decided at all of the meetings that I attended in two different states in three different chapters that just plugging in or wiring a furnace is not acceptable per our interpretation and the bonding of the metal pipe at the gas meter or pipe where it enters the structure will be bonded. This has become the industry standard, and I've yet to meet an electrician who doesn't bond it automatically. We never have to tell them to do it.

There are a lot of inspectors out there with decades of experience who understand the importance of grounding and bonding and where to use a common sense approach. I have yet to have one electrician try to say that the #14awg bare copper wire in the NM cable that feeds the furnace circuit is adequate. They always bond at the meter or a location that makes the most sense.

If you want to inspect and approve per the exact literal verbiage of the code based on how you interpret it, that is always a choice. Most of us are more cautious based on our direct experience.
 
If the 14 AWG wire is adequate to clear a fault on the the furnace itself, how could it not be adequate for the gas pipe? Especially if the furnace is the only thing that could energize the circuit? And if it isn't, you have multiple equipment grounding wires sharing the fault current.
 
BN4537 said:
If the 14 AWG wire is adequate to clear a fault on the the furnace itself, how could it not be adequate for the gas pipe? Especially if the furnace is the only thing that could energize the circuit? And if it isn't, you have multiple equipment grounding wires sharing the fault current.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that it isn't. We are talking about a safer decision based on multiple discussions between inspectors and electricians at the IAEI meetings. You do you.
 
jar546 said:
This has been discussed at many IAEI meetings. Electrical inspectors do not know the inner workings of every gas appliance, and every gas appliance does not have electricity. It has therefore been collectively decided at all of the meetings that I attended in two different states in three different chapters that just plugging in or wiring a furnace is not acceptable per our interpretation and the bonding of the metal pipe at the gas meter or pipe where it enters the structure will be bonded. This has become the industry standard, and I've yet to meet an electrician who doesn't bond it automatically. We never have to tell them to do it.

There are a lot of inspectors out there with decades of experience who understand the importance of grounding and bonding and where to use a common sense approach. I have yet to have one electrician try to say that the #14awg bare copper wire in the NM cable that feeds the furnace circuit is adequate. They always bond at the meter or a location that makes the most sense.

If you want to inspect and approve per the exact literal verbiage of the code based on how you interpret it, that is always a choice. Most of us are more cautious based on our direct experience.
Click to expand...

When I was a contractor, I bonded the gas pipe in 1 town through 3 states to please an inspector 1+ hours away from my house - Its bonded through the EGC of the circuit supplying the appliance. You don't have to agree with a 14 bonding it, but both NEC 250.104(B) (circuit likely to energize) and IRC G2411.1 (egc of circuit supplying appliance) say that it meets code - no additional gas pipe bonding required.

You can argue that any wire crossing the gas pipe could be likely to energize it, but I disagree. If you have a damaged NM/SE cable sitting on gas piping, there's likely a bigger issue to address.
 
Back to the CEE - on a recent IBC project in town I made sure to point out ahead of a footing inspection to bond the GEC to the rebar. I explained to the electrician he only needed a #4 GEC bonded to the rebar and that it needed to go to the service disconnect (their first time in town). When I went out to inspect the service a few months later he explained to me that the GEC wire was paved over...

What would you do under normal NEC language for 250.50?

Our state wording changes the language in 250.50 to all electrodes that are present to all electrodes that are available. Now its not available.. Should I have made them dig the pavement up? What if it got buried in the concrete or was missed entirely (shouldn't be missed at footing inspection)? Do I make them expose it?
 
sclavette said:
Should I have made them dig the pavement up? What if it got buried in the concrete or was missed entirely (shouldn't be missed at footing inspection)? Do I make them expose it?
Click to expand...
Either that, or pour another Ufer. If there are more than one Ufer, you only have to bond to one. Often the new Ufer can be poured in a trench dug for conduit or the sewer pipe. A stick of rebar, some concrete, and some wire can be cheaper than trying to find a Ufer when you don't know precisely where it's at.
sclavette said:
Our state wording changes the language in 250.50 to all electrodes that are present to all electrodes that are available. Now its not available.
Click to expand...
Your state likely changed that wording specifically to avoid what I describe here. So, you would probably be legal skipping the Ufer and driving two ground rods.
 
jar546 said:
No one is saying that it isn't. We are talking about a safer decision based on multiple discussions between inspectors and electricians at the IAEI meetings. You do you.
Click to expand...
Not trying to be combative, just trying to figure out the rationale. Is the thought that there will be fault current from some other source routed down that 14 AWG wire? Is it about induced voltage from nearby lightning? What is the theory behind this practice?

Edit: I guess the ground prong could get broken off the furnace plug/cord. That hazard would be mitigated by bonding elsewhere.
 
jar546 said:
Electrical inspectors do not know the inner workings of every gas appliance
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But if I show the inspector the text of 250.104(B)(1), and it is applicable to an install (the only wiring in the vicinity of the gas piping are the branch circuit(s) serving the gas appliance(s)), and at each appliance I have either a bonding jumper sized to the branch circuit EGC, or demonstrate that the appliance has such an internal bonding jumper, then that complies with the text of 250.104(B). I expect the inspector to agree, because that is what the NEC says.

jar546 said:
, and every gas appliance does not have electricity.
Click to expand...
Likewise, where there are no gas appliances that have electricity, and no electrical wiring in the vicinity of the gas piping, I expect the inspector to agree that no gas pipe bond is required. Because that is what the NEC and the IFGC say.

jar546 said:
I have yet to have one electrician try to say that the #14awg bare copper wire in the NM cable that feeds the furnace circuit is adequate.
Click to expand...
I am certainly saying that, as that is what the NEC says, when the branch circuit is the only wiring likely to energize the gas piping.

Cheers, Wayne
 
BN4537 said:
Edit: I guess the ground prong could get broken off the furnace plug/cord. That hazard would be mitigated by bonding elsewhere.
Click to expand...
7.12.2* CSST.


CSST gas piping systems, and gas piping systems containing one or more segments of CSST, shall be electrically continuous and bonded to the electrical service grounding electrode system or, where provided, lightning protection grounding electrode system.
7.12.2.1


The bonding jumper shall connect to a metallic pipe, pipe fitting, or CSST fitting.
7.12.2.2


The bonding jumper shall not be smaller than 6 AWG copper wire or equivalent.
 
7.12.2.3*


The length of the jumper between the connection to the gas piping system and the grounding electrode system shall not exceed 75 ft (22 m). Any additional grounding electrodes installed to meet this requirement shall be bonded to the electrical service grounding electrode system or, where provided, lightning protection grounding electrode system.
7.12.2.4


Bonding connections shall be in accordance with NFPA 70.
7.12.2.5


Devices used for the bonding connection shall be listed for the application in accordance with UL 467, Grounding and Bonding Equipment.
 
BN4537 said:
The IFGC only requires bonding of CSST that is not arc-resistant with a #6 wire not over 75'
Click to expand...
Can someone please post the actual wording of that code.

For what it’s worth, at virtually every service upgrade I asked for a jumper wire from cold to hot to gas pipe at the water heater. Yes a gas fired furnace could meet the code requirement however, in as much as the jumper from cold to hot pipes was in the works anyway, I will forgo finding the furnace and you will land on the gas pipe. There are other reasons but I need not go there.
 
Last edited:
jar546 said:
I already did. Look at the previous posts.
Click to expand...
So you have CSST and you can bond to any hard pipe in the system that is attached to the CSST? That is not how I have been enforcing the code in that I expect the bonding jumper to land on the CSST or a CSST fitting.
 
ICE said:
Can someone please post the actual wording of that code.

For what it’s worth, at virtually every service upgrade I asked for a jumper wire from cold to hot to gas pipe at the water heater. Yes a gas fired furnace could meet the code requirement however, in as much as the jumper from cold to hot pipes was in the works anyway, I will forgo finding the furnace and you will land on the gas pipe. There are other reasons but I need not go there.
Click to expand...

I believe what you are looking for is in the middle 2 sections and the CSST manufacturers say "upstream" of any CSST.....But I am not even sure what we are talking about anymore....What If I drive a ground rod through the CSST into the CEE?​

G2411.1 (310.1)​

Each above-ground portion of a gas piping system other than corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) that is likely to become energized shall be electrically continuous and bonded to an effective ground-fault current path. Gas piping other than CSST shall be considered to be bonded where it is connected to an appliance that is connected to the equipment grounding conductor of the circuit that supplies that appliance.

G2411.2 (310.2)​

This section applies to corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) that is not listed with an arcresistant jacket or coating system in accordance with ANSI LC1/CSA 6.26. CSST gas piping systems and piping systems containing one or more segments of CSST shall be electrically continuous and bonded to the electrical service grounding electrode system or, where provided, the lightning protection grounding electrode system.

G2411.2.1 (310.2.1)​

The bonding jumper shall connect to a metallic pipe, pipe fitting or CSST fitting.

G2411.3 (310.3)​

This section applies to corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) that is listed with an arc-resistant jacket or coating system in accordance with ANSI LC1/CSA 6.26. The CSST shall be electrically continuous and bonded to an effective ground fault current path. Where any CSST component of a piping system does not have an arc-resistant jacket or coating system, the bonding requirements of Section G2411.2 shall apply. Arc-resistant-jacketed CSST shall be considered to be bonded where it is connected to an appliance that is connected to the appliance grounding conductor of the circuit that supplies that appliance.
 
The arc-resistant jacket might not be recognized in California code.

UPDATE
I went to the CPC and there is no mention of arc-resistant CSST. I’ve seen plenty of it. It has a black jacket and might be named Counter Strike.

I did find the wonky bonding section that says this: “The bonding jumper shall connect to a metallic pipe, pipe fitting, or CSST fitting.”

Past code required a solid #6 whereas today, stranded is permitted. I suspect that I didn’t just invent the requirement to land the jumper on the CSST.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
For what it’s worth, at virtually every service upgrade I asked for a jumper wire from cold to hot to gas pipe at the water heater
Click to expand...
FWIW that's a Californiaism, or maybe the West Coast more broadly, not sure. Not a code requirement, just a simple way for the installer to comply with any gas/hot water bonding required (assuming the cold water supply is metallic and continuous!) and something that is easy for the inspector to verify.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
FWIW that's a Californiaism, or maybe the West Coast more broadly, not sure. Not a code requirement, just a simple way for the installer to comply with any gas/hot water bonding required (assuming the cold water supply is metallic and continuous!) and something that is easy for the inspector to verify.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
It depends on what kind of shower valve you have. If you don't have a shower valve that combines hot and cold, then most likely the pipes are not bonded.
 
sclavette said:
Back to the CEE - on a recent IBC project in town I made sure to point out ahead of a footing inspection to bond the GEC to the rebar. I explained to the electrician he only needed a #4 GEC bonded to the rebar and that it needed to go to the service disconnect (their first time in town). When I went out to inspect the service a few months later he explained to me that the GEC wire was paved over...

What would you do under normal NEC language for 250.50?

Our state wording changes the language in 250.50 to all electrodes that are present to all electrodes that are available. Now its not available.. Should I have made them dig the pavement up? What if it got buried in the concrete or was missed entirely (shouldn't be missed at footing inspection)? Do I make them expose it?
Click to expand...
It was available at the time of design, and if it was consequentially covered over it should be dug up. The spirit of" if available" implies on new construction it is required, on existing you do not have to dig up the concrete to get to the rebar, if it is not exsposed available.

That thought pattern would be the same as " all of the plumbing ground work was back filled so I do not need an inspection."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top