jwelectric
Silver Member
Once again all I am asking for is verbiage that shows this being a requirement. A standard of practice is not code verbiage.Darren Emery said:I can certainly get on board with gfret's concept. That is exactly how we have viewed in in our jurisdiciton for quite some time now, and have required either a jumper between the hot and cold water pipe systems, or both systems to be bonded. The electrican almost always chose a jumper. This has become a moot point of late, especially in residential; I cannot remember the last time I saw anything other than pex in a home. The '08 NEC states in part: 250.104 (A)(1) General: Metal water piping system(s)....shall be bonded...
Unless you can verify electrical continuity between the hot and cold supply lines, you have two separate systems. IMHO and according to our department's interpretation.
As code enforcement officials all we can do is enforce code. We are not allowed to enforce a standard of practice and just because this is the way it is done here is not code verbiage.
The ICC plumbing code says very clearly that there is only one potable water supply that serves the fixtures in a dwelling unit that people can bathe, wash, drink, or cook with. The plumbing codes do not say that there are two potable water supplies in a dwelling.
How one sees something does not matter without some sort of verbiage from the code being enforced.
The requirement was moved from 250-80 to 250-104 between the 1996 and the 1999 code cycles but the (s) was not added until the 2002 code cycle. Does this mean that it was not until 2002 that this practice was started? No! This practice is a holdover from the 1970s when there was very clear verbiage that required any and all metal piping systems installed in a building to be made and kept electrically continuous.
In the 1999 code cycle in 250-104(b) the requirement; “Each above ground portion of a gas piping system upstream from the equipment shutoff valve shall be electrically continuous and bonded to the grounding electrode system.” But there was no such requirement for a metal water piping system in 250-104(a)(1).
The requirement found in 250-104(b) of the 1999 cycle was removed in the 2002 code cycle and there is no longer a requirement to make gas pipes electrically continuous. Prior to the 1999 edition there was no mention of gas piping systems at all, just other metal piping systems.
Either show the verbiage used to enforce the bonding of the cold to hot or cold to service and hot to service or admit that there is no such requirement. Either show the requirement to make a metal water piping system electrically continuous or admit that there is no such requirement.
Once again (for the fiftieth time) please show me verbiage from any code that requires this ridiculous bonding that is nothing more than a waste of our natural resources. I have been a study of the electrical codes for more than 45 years now and will not accept anything other than what is written in the code.
Last edited by a moderator: