Please tell me what you think

[Gregg Harris]

Good news folks. The chief electrical engineer has decided that henceforth we will not require a jumper at the water heater between the hot and cold water pipe. Apparently, the pipe is bonded well enough by faucets and there is a small likelihood that it will become energized.I don't have a problem with it either way it gets done. This rule came from the top several years ago and I have written the correction a few hundred times. At this point, most of the electricians in my area are doing it without a correction from me. I suppose that I should give them a heads up and tell them that it's not required anymore.

One of the reasons that the rule has been tossed is that many of the inspectors never paid any attention to it to begin with. It's not too hard to get behind tossing a rule that few inspectors enforce. We could toss out a bunch of the code for that reason.

A few inspectors expanded on the rule and included the gas pipe in this bonding jumper at the water heater. Yes I know that the NEC doesn't require this if there is an appliance that has both electrical and gas but how are we to know when there is no access. Well the new twist is that we are to find out about the bonding of the gas pipe via an equipment ground serving an appliance and if there is none then install a bonding jumper.

I look forward to tossing this new rule so I hope that nobody but me enforces it. Come to think of it, I know of a few corrections that I consistently find that the other inspectors aren't writing. I don't think that anybody is asking for a strap at over-bored top plates or deration of conductors for more that three in a raceway and more. I'm sorta fed up with the questions like "Since when can't a one inch conduit have 17 #12"? and "What does over-bored mean"?

I am pretty sure that the people in charge around here would say that I am in the wrong and that I should get on the same page as everyone else. And what the Hell, people aren't getting electrocuted and houses aren't burning down so why not get back in the fold?

What if it is a plastic faucet or supply tube?

 

[jar546]

I am not sure if the OP is looking for a response that is code based or whether the jumper has merit? IMO, there is no code section that requires the plumbing to be jumped between the hot and cold. As long as there is continuity between the piping then there is no need for the jumper. Obviously if a dielectric fitting is used then there would be a need. It has never been required here. There has also been arguments as to whether it is required if the system is not continuous or a total metal piping system. Suppose there is pecs coming off the water heater on the hot and cold and that connects to the copper water system throughout the building. Is a jumper needed?

IMO, it is not required and one could argue whether or not the water pipe needs to be bonded. In this event the metal piping not attached to the water heater is not likely to become energized so IMO, it does not need the bonding at all. IN NC the state has made an arbitrary rule that if the METAL piping constitutes more than 50% of the entire system then they require the bonding. The NEC IMO does not.

Put me in Dennis's camp on this one.

There are all kinds of faucets out there many with plastic bodies and zero continuity. What is consistent in our area is a shower with a single handle vs separate for hot and cold with no continuity. The shower valve is heavy metal that combines the hot and cold so as long as they have that, we are OK without a jumper across the hot and code of the WH or wherever else the EC chooses to put one.

Many ECs put them in routinely, others don't when there is a single shower valve.