• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Water Main..yes or no?

I have to disagree that the code is clear on this issue. The code is clear that the electrodes need to be bonded together to create the grounding system. It is also clear that an "auxiliary electrode" (whatever that is) does not have to be part of that system.

There is no definition of auxiliary electrode in the code that I can find, and I think it might be worth a public input to define "auxiliary electrode" when I slow down enough to submit one.

In a scenario where an electrician or an electrical engineer were to claim that the water pipe was an auxiliary electrode, I as an inspector cannot definitively tell him that it isn't by using only the NEC, since it isn't really defined, and there are indications that it might be in 250.54. I can't tell him that it is an auxiliary electrode either, because the term is not defined.

So, I would have to make an interpretation of the code, and I would have to decide, basically without guidance from the code, whether the water pipe was an "auxiliary electrode" or not. It is definitely an electrode, but it is it "auxiliary"?

So, it would come down to "Because I am the AHJ, and I said so." Which is totally legal, but you lose style points...

I would agree with Ice that it would be safer from a lightning perspective if you make them bond within 5' of the entry to the building. Safer still would be to add a section of nonconductive piping where the pipe enters the building, and then bonding at the hose bib. As an AHJ, the added safety factor is probably enough to sway the interpretation against calling the water main an "auxiliary electrode", since our jobs exist to keep people safe.

I would actually be in favor of adding an exception to 250.54 that says that pipe electrodes must be bonded together per 250.50, maybe another good public input for the future. Even if they shoot it down, that would show the stance of the code writers on the issue.
 
It is the job of code enforcers to interpret the code and apply it to the real world, and yes we each make the calls in the field as we go. Whether this is clear or not is an opinion, in my opinion it's clear. Since this thread started with wanting opinions it's a great conversation. Cheers!
 
If you were in a hospital how would you feel if the nurses could override the judgement of a doctor.
This is a logical fallacy called false equivalency. You are comparing two things under the assumption that they are equal, but they are not.

It is the job of a building official to ensure the code is followed. For this comparison to be valid, the role of a nurse would be to ensure that doctors are providing adequate care to their patients, which it is not to my knowledge.

As my boss (who is an engineer) has always said if an RDP cannot convince you they are right, they lack the necessary evidence to believe they are right themselves.
 
This is a logical fallacy called false equivalency. You are comparing two things under the assumption that they are equal, but they are not.

It is the job of a building official to ensure the code is followed. For this comparison to be valid, the role of a nurse would be to ensure that doctors are providing adequate care to their patients, which it is not to my knowledge.
More like you hope the nurse will keep the doctor from amputating your arm because you have a splinter?
 
More like you hope the nurse will keep the doctor from amputating your arm because you have a splinter?
There would be an expectation that a nurse may question a doctor who appears to not be acting in the patients best interest, but this is related more to their professional service obligations. But a nurse is not responsible for the reviewing the work undertaken by the doctor to ensure it meets with treatment options outlined by law.

In contrast, I do review the work of RDPs to ensure it meets with the codes adopted by my elected officials.

A good example I have is we had an engineer approve the use of some fire dampers. The dampers did not meet code in multiple ways. They were certified to UL 555, but our code requires certification to CAN/ULC-S112. They were also static dampers in a dynamic system. I received a stamped letter from the engineer indicating the installation was acceptable as they were going to install smoke detectors in compliance with the code recognized standards of NFPA 72 and 96.

I rejected the letter as it did not address the fact the dampers were not tested to the proper standard and the engineer referenced the two NFPA standards instead of the actual standards referenced in the code.
 
Top