ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues PEX and copper bonding

As an inspector I look at the word PIPING system. A valve, faucet, etc. is not in my opinion piping. A four foot long piece of metal at a walk in shower with valves and multiple shower heads is again IMO piping.
Alan --Inspector.
The plumber (?) saves copper the electrician has to make up for it.

[This message has been edited by Alan Nadon (edited 07-23-2005).]

Code also requires that the point of attachment to the pipes be accessible… God help me.

DNK: It appears you are quoting the handbook commentary. Disregard that and read what it really says in the code text, not wat the handbook perhaps wants it to say.

OK, I thought the commentary was to make heads or tails in laymans terms, of what the wording meant in the code book.

Sometimes, I can read the words, but can't interpret what the intent is, that is why I also read the commentary that goes with each section.


Stupid me...


Dnk...........

Theres nothing wrong with reading the commentary...I do it myself sometimes. We all just have to keep it in check with what the code text says, because sometimes they conflict.

Is this plumbing you are referring to the blue/orange(cold/hot) stuff with crimped ends? Wired a huge multi-unit retirement complex where that was used, and would hate to think that if we did another one we would have to bond all the piping at the ends of these runs. Would have taken a few miles of #6 bare.

BTW, that stuff holds water for anywhere from a few minutes to a few months when they forget to crimp it...had "occasional showers" off and on for weeks after that project had the water turned on. The ones on the second floor were particularly interesting!(especially for the tenant below...you know, the lady with all the cherry furniture!)

Ryan- Can you give me an example where the commentary conflicts with the Code?

And poorboy, -How did you come up with a #6 bonding conductor?

How about the section we are discussing?

Ryan - I just read the commentary in the '02 handbook and I can't see any conflict?? Seems clear whether I read the text or the commentary that interior and exterior piping needs to be bonded to the GEC etc,etc. What am I missing? The commentary don't mention the exterior piping but the Text does? I'm quite comfortable with the commentary and tho it's not "Code" I find it very helpful.

Ryan,

Try reading the selection this way: Section 250.104(A)(1) requires the 'interior metal water piping system' and 'any other metal piping systems likely to become energized' to be bonded to the service equipment or grounding electrode conductor.

As opposed to: Section 250.104(A)(1) requires the 'interior metal water piping system and any other metal piping systems' likely to become energized to be bonded to the service equipment or grounding electrode conductor.

The first way is the way these two systems are worded in the NEC, the second is not.

To make it perfectly clear: The NEC requires bonding of "interior metal water piping systems" and of "other metal piping systems likely to be energized". Neither the NEC nor the Commentary refer to "interior metal water piping systems likely to be energized".