Originally Posted By: wwallbaum This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I hear so many schools of thought on gas line grounding. What is everybodys take? I see it in so many new constructs, it makes certain inspectors here crazy except for the city inspectors (apparently). I am at a point that I don’t know if I should call it out or not…
Originally Posted By: wwallbaum This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Thanks. I attended an ASHI meeting once where this subject came up, and everyone acted like it was the end of the world. I began calling it out until I found it in every new construct. I guess the info in that meeting was wrong…One reason why I joined NACHI instead…
Originally Posted By: pabernathy This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Ok…
The main problem in understand this is also based on the example of how you posted the qestion....he term grounding of the gas line when it really should be BONDING......two different things.....it is very important to know the difference in them..
In 1999 the NEC refered to the bonding of gas piping in Art 250-104(b) and it read as followed:
250-104(b) - Metal Gas Piping. Each aboveground portion of a gas piping system upstream from the equipment shutoff valve shall be electrically continuous and bonded to the grounding electrode system. The key here was upstream....remember that.
Ok...the confusion came because many would refer to the (c) version of this refering to metal piping and so in 2002 NEC it was revised.
Now...their is a difference between using the gas line as a " grounding electrode" versus bonding the system if it can possibly become live . Please understand the ruling in that you can NOT use any underground metal gas piping for the grounding electrode..... as listed in 2002 NEC 250-52(a)
Ok.....nice to see the NEC cleaned up the grounding electrode issue with the 250.53 ( 2002 NEC ) so it make sit clear what is involved in the grounding electrode system installation...new code section in 2002.
OK...on to the Gas piping....view NEC 2002 Art 250.104(b)...this refers to the bonding of piping systems and if they are installed in which they have a likely chance to become energized that shall be bonded as listed in the article.
The intent of the revision is make it clear that an equipment grounding conductor can bond all metal piping, including gas piping. So the additional bonding jumper is not required for gas or other metal piping.
So....summary....NO as a GE, and the ECG can be used to bond the gas piping system.
Would like to add even more but you guys dont want to read a novel..lol
-- Paul W. Abernathy- NACHI Certified
Electrical Service Specialists
Licensed Master Electrician
Electrical Contractor
President of NACHI Central Virginia Chapter
NEC Instructor
Moderator @ Doityourself.com
Visit our website- www.electrical-ess.com
Originally Posted By: joetedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
A Ground Fault Current Path can include gas piping, but that does not mean that the existing underground gas pipe can be used as an electrode anymore.
This will arise during an inspection of older homes and should be noted.
Here is a fine print explanatory note from 250.2 in the NEC:
FPN: Examples of ground-fault current paths could consist of any combination of equipment grounding conductors, metallic raceways, metallic cable sheaths, electrical equipment, and any other electrically conductive material such as metal water and gas piping, steel framing members, stucco mesh, metal ducting, reinforcing steel, shields of communications cables, and the earth itself.
Originally Posted By: pabernathy This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Quote:
So....summary....NO as a GE, and the ECG can be used to bond the gas piping system.
250-52 in 1999 NEC has always stated the such......Art 250-52(a)
Art. 250-52(a)(1999NEC) Metal underground Gas Piping System. A metal underground gas piping system SHALL NOT be used as a grounding electrode.
This did not change in the 2002 or 2005......has been their for some time explaining the underground gas line CANT be used as such....nothing new on this ruling except as mentioned in my previous post where it was clarified in terms of " Bonding " which has been expaned and made easier to understand in the later revisions of the NEC.
Not a matter of was it allowed before...it was not.....just clarified to solve the confussion in later reviews.
-- Paul W. Abernathy- NACHI Certified
Electrical Service Specialists
Licensed Master Electrician
Electrical Contractor
President of NACHI Central Virginia Chapter
NEC Instructor
Moderator @ Doityourself.com
Visit our website- www.electrical-ess.com
Originally Posted By: joetedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Again, the reason for deleting the rule that permitted the underground gas piping system as an electrode from the NEC, was because the NFPA 54 Gas Code never permitted it, so in order to remove the conflict in the NEC proposal by this writer and others was accepted and the NEC was revised and deleted that permission.
So, if you should happen to come across this connection it would be wise to call it to the attention of your clients.
Originally Posted By: joetedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Using the most recent 1996, 1999, 2002, and 2005 NEC as a reference is confusing everyone!
I recommend that we stop citing the 1996, 1999, 2002, and 2005 NEC references and go back to at least the 1993 edition, or find an earlier old NFPA 70A One and Two Family Code.
I have the 93 NEC Windows product on floppies, and will be happy to clarify any issue related to premises wiring systems that were installed during that edition.
It should also be noted that most jurisdictions recognize the date of the building permit as the actual start of construction.
I am also able to collect information from NFPA publications, including the Preprints, TCR, TCD, ROP and ROC's as far back as 1950.
These reports are usually found in most electrical libraries of those who were involved in their revisions.