- Reaction score
- North Carolina
Go back and read post 18 where Jeff made this statement;Ooo, big names - I guess. I always love it when I get into a disagreement with someone and they feel the need to tell me they have 147 years of experience as a <insert trade here> and are best buddies with <insert higher authority here>.
I was simply letting him know that I was spending the day with some of these same people. I spend one or two days with these people no less than 14 times a year. I discuss things such as bonding across a water heater all the time and for some reason they think it silly also.I think you will find yourself out in left field on this one. Having been an inspector for years, and IAEI and NFPA member and having access to panel members who are responsible for changes in the code, I have been able to verify the intent of issues like this.
My Mom called me Mike for 53 years. When I heard the name Joseph I knew it was time to pray for mercy.Your name is Joseph? I thought it was Mike.
What did you think, 4 out of 5 is not a bad average is it? Got several accepted for the 2011 cycle also.
I do believe that this electrical inspector who has his ICC as well as the state certification will tell you that I do not take my opinion and say it is the intent of the code but instead back the intent with the Report on Proposals, Report on Comments and other documentation from the National Fire Protection Association.Ive known Mike personally for about the last 4-5 years. His full name is Joseph Michael Whitt. Therefore JW Electric. And yes he eats, sleeps, and breathes the NEC.
Although it takes a couple of years I will also summit a proposal in order to get a panel statement on items that I am unsure of in order to see their intent. I did this for the 2011 cycle so I would have their statement in writing concerning conductors installed in a 3R enclosure.
What I donâ€™t do is make statements such as, â€œthis is the way me and all my friends has done it for yearsâ€ or â€œthis is the intent of the code the way I see itâ€.
What I do is post documented text to back my statements so everyone can see for their self the intent of the code making panel.
What I have done throughout this entire thread is post code sections from years (the same years that this nonsense was being enforced) gone by that the requirement to make a plumbing pipe electrically continuous had been removed from the NEC. I have posted the statements from the Code Making Panel that bonding a piping system that does not have electrical continuity is nothing more than a big joke and to ensure electrical continuity between two pipes is not required.
The other side of this debate has come back with some spectacular documentation that revels the world. Just a few:
I know a few people like you that are so literal, you misinterpret the actual meaning and intent of the code.
Of course in your world, the $10 is not justified and neither is bonding the other 50% of the metallic water piping because you simply do not understand that there are times where there is not continuity. Probably don't know what a dielectric union is anyway.
Guys like you make the worst inspectors. stick to teaching. Remember:
"Those that can do; those that can't teach"
I have read this entire thread and do not see where you have posted one word of documentation except those posted above.I have given every substantiation that exists and you are too stubborn and tunnel visioned to see the light. You just keep teaching and preaching what you want, the rest of the industry will continue to protect the public.
We will have to agree to disagree. No sense in continuing this BS.
I asked a simple question way back in post #14 that has not been addressed as yet except for the post I have quoted here. These post has led to others making similar insults but not one word of documentation to back your opinion although I have backed every word I have posted with statement from the code making panel and the NEC.
The bottom line is you can either back up your statements or you canâ€™t. As a professional inspector I would think you would be prepared to back up something that you are enforcing with some sort of documentation.
I do know that should someone bring you before the Qualifications Board that has issued your certificates you will have to produce documentation of your reasons for enforcement of lose your certificates.
I know for a fact that neither the ICC nor the State of NC will accept the reasoning that this has been a Standard of Practice as foundation for making an inspection.
The bottom line of this discussion is there is no requirement to bond the hot and cold water pipes across a water heater. There is no requirement to make metal water piping systems electrically continuous.
Unless a metal water piping system is electrically continuous in and of itself then the bonding fall back to 250.104(B). See the posted proposals. The electrician is not required to make the metal water pipe electrically continuous.
The hot and cold water pipes of a building are the same water system. They are both potable water and do not constitute two separate piping systems. If there is not electrical continuity between the hot and cold water pipes for ANY reason be it fittings or stubs supplying the water heater there is no requirement for the electrician to bond these two pipes together.
I now challenge anyone be it electrician, inspector, plumber, or DIY to post documentation of anything different.