Bonding the Hot Water pipe.

[jwelectric]

I feel like this thread is become more of an ASSAULT than a useful discussion of any type,

I am sorry you feel this way. The question asked by the original poster did not get answered until the last couple of pages. It took some discussion before the object of the question got addressed.

Hello,

I'm working a job in Downtown Los Angeles area and the inspector hit me for not having a HOT water bond. I'm familar with inspectors calling for the gas to cold water, which I did at the water heater; then in a continious run, ran to the new 100 amp meter main service. I ran an additional bond straight to the new ground rod just below the panel. Doesn't the fact that the plumbing is tied together at the facets eliminate the need for a redundant bond to the hot water?
Thanks.

It has been only in the past few posts that the truth has come out that there is no verbiage in the NEC that this or any other inspector can use to enforce the bonding across a water heater.
The requirement found in 250.104 does not mandate that any metal water or gas pipe be made electrically continuous. The only requirement is that the point of connection be accessible. Bonding of the hot to cold pipes cannot be enforced by a code section therefore it is not required by the NEC.

Your jurisdiction can amend the NEC and require that the two be bonded but in order for this to happen it must be recorded somewhere in writing that can be produced. The idea of what most call the AHJ or what is in fact the inspector or code enforcement official cannot just decide that he wants to interpret the code to mean that there are two systems, one hot and one cold unless it is in writing that he can produce as the adopted code for that jurisdiction.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Mike an ahj can pretty much do what they want. It makes us have to challenge them and unless it is an outright error on the ahj part there is not much that we can do. Even Ron, our state inspector, can only call the other inspectors and give his ruling. That does not have any bearing on the inspectors rule if he decides he does not like the ruling by Ron.

I have talked to Ron and inspectors about this and they both agree it comes down to the local authority. That being said if a local guy sees the hot and cold as two systems then I don't see where we have any choice but to either do it or argue and perhaps get nowhere.

I had an inspector rule incorrectly, IMO, on one of my jobs and Ron agreed with me but the ahj would not budge.

We can only hope to have inspectors listen to reason and the code but it appears to me this area is a bit fuzzy.

I guess the question is why does the water system have to be 100% and not 50% to require bonding. Why bond a water pipe at all if there is plastic entering the building. Why wouldn't the egc on a water heater do the trick? If it is a gas water heater is this water pipe likely to be energized. I know the nec doesn't state that but it does for other piping systems. Why the gap???

Personally I agree there was a bit of muscle flexing going on but there has also been good info. BTW, mos of the dialog is difference of opinion not muscle flexing.

 

[Ddexter]

Hot water heater bonding

Hot water heater bonding

I really like to listen to all of you talk about bonding .
However having said that I would like to say if you are going to argue the point give me a code article that you will base your argument on .
The code is a legal and binding document and is not open to what if.
So far I have only seen one actual code article listed in argument.
Right now at first blush this looks more like an opinnion page than a professional electrical discussion.
Is it a good idea YES.
Required by code I will get back with code articles before I make a statement.
Really like to listen to all of you and thanks for the input.

 

[jwelectric]

Bob

While pedaling away some more of these fifty pounds I am losing, I thought of a good analogy to your transformer and potable water.

A transformer changes from one system to another and a water closet will change from one water system to another. The transformer will change from one voltage to a separately derived voltage and the water closet will change from potable water to gray water and then to waste water. A water heater has potable water enter and potable water leave therefore nothing is ?transformed? (my cute play on words)

Dennis

Not meaning to sound like a know it all or anything but in the past I have had inspectors that wanted to stand pat on their thoughts and being as hard headed as I am took it all the way to the Qualification Board. I suppose that the bottom line is just how far each person us willing to go to prove their point.
Before Ron took his position Jimmy Carpenter had that job. I sit at his desk back when they were on North Boylan Avenue many times talking about an inspection. He introduced me to the investigator that I needed to talk with about the problem.
From the DOI web site

SECTION .0800 - DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS: OTHER CONTESTED MATTERS ​

11 NCAC 08 .0801 DISCIPLINARY POWERS
(a) As used in this Section "Board" and "Code" have the same meanings as those terms are defined in G.S. 143-151.8(a); and "official" means a qualified Code-enforcement official as defined in G.S. 143-151.8(5).
(b) Any person who believes that an official is or has been in violation of G.S. 143-151.17(a) may file a complaint against that official. Copies of this Section and G.S. 143-151.17 shall be mailed to any person requesting complaint information from the Board.

On a side note; notice how the DOI calls them code enforcement officials and does not refer to them as any type of authority having jurisdiction. I suppose that the final authority would be the officer charged with hearing the compliant in this case.

 

[izak]

yah oops sorry about the OP thing. by the time I got to page 8, I just felt like the whole thing had been run over by 'Mike' THAT was my point

Its funny, tho, that when we bond water piping in a house, we are required to use table 250.66.

that is.. we really arent 'bonding for overcurrent protection' at all. we are establishing a GEC.
and the jumper that we use to go to the hot, has to be the same size (#4 on 200A service)

this is in regards to 250.104 (a) (1)

Personally I feel as if a #10 wire as a bond for both hot and cold would be very sufficient as most homes we see dont have any branch circuits over 60A anyway

again, sorry for my confusion, but hey... i am used to feeling stupid anyway

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I really like to listen to all of you talk about bonding .
However having said that I would like to say if you are going to argue the point give me a code article that you will base your argument on .
The code is a legal and binding document and is not open to what if.
So far I have only seen one actual code article listed in argument.
Right now at first blush this looks more like an opinnion page than a professional electrical discussion.
Is it a good idea YES.
Required by code I will get back with code articles before I make a statement.
Really like to listen to all of you and thanks for the input.

Welcome to the forum. Article numbers have been mentioned many times unfortunately the NEC does not mention what a metal water piping system consists of and that is the point of much of the discussion.

 

[iwire]

Bob

While pedaling away some more of these fifty pounds I am losing, I thought of a good analogy to your transformer and potable water.

A transformer changes from one system to another and a water closet will change from one water system to another. The transformer will change from one voltage to a separately derived voltage and the water closet will change from potable water to gray water and then to waste water. A water heater has potable water enter and potable water leave therefore nothing is ?transformed? (my cute play on words)

Dennis

Not meaning to sound like a know it all or anything but in the past I have had inspectors that wanted to stand pat on their thoughts and being as hard headed as I am took it all the way to the Qualification Board. I suppose that the bottom line is just how far each person us willing to go to prove their point.
Before Ron took his position Jimmy Carpenter had that job. I sit at his desk back when they were on North Boylan Avenue many times talking about an inspection. He introduced me to the investigator that I needed to talk with about the problem.
From the DOI web site

SECTION .0800 - DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS: OTHER CONTESTED MATTERS ​

11 NCAC 08 .0801 DISCIPLINARY POWERS
(a) As used in this Section "Board" and "Code" have the same meanings as those terms are defined in G.S. 143-151.8(a); and "official" means a qualified Code-enforcement official as defined in G.S. 143-151.8(5).
(b) Any person who believes that an official is or has been in violation of G.S. 143-151.17(a) may file a complaint against that official. Copies of this Section and G.S. 143-151.17 shall be mailed to any person requesting complaint information from the Board.

On a side note; notice how the DOI calls them code enforcement officials and does not refer to them as any type of authority having jurisdiction. I suppose that the final authority would be the officer charged with hearing the compliant in this case.

Mike, the AHJ is well within their authority to call the the cold and hot water piping separate systems.

 

[Mgraw]

Mike, the AHJ is well within their authority to call the the cold and hot water piping separate systems.

I agree, In fact the IPC has Section 607 HOT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM

 

[jwelectric]

Mike, the AHJ is well within their authority to call the the cold and hot water piping separate systems.

Is that opinion or code fact? If code fact show the text please.

 

[LarryFine]

Mike, the AHJ is well within their authority to call the the cold and hot water piping separate systems.

Nonetheless, I'd want to see a demonstration that there is no conductivity between them before having to install a jumper.

I asked earlier; has anyone here ever found there to be voltage between hot and cold piping, or other evidence of isolation?

 

[iwire]

Is that opinion or code fact? If code fact show the text please.

It is just an opinion like all posts on this forum.

 

[iwire]

Nonetheless, I'd want to see a demonstration that there is no conductivity between them before having to install a jumper.

IMO you have it backward, the inspector does not have to prove there is no continuity you have to prove there is.

No different than my view about the 25 ohm requirement for single rods.

I asked earlier; has anyone here ever found there to be voltage between hot and cold piping, or other evidence of isolation?

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

IMO we have been talking about the rules, not the reality.

 

[LarryFine]

IMO you have it backward, the inspector does not have to prove there is no continuity you have to prove there is.

I'd be willing to use a 100w bulb between a breaker and the water pipe as a test.

What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

IMO we have been talking about the rules, not the reality.

Oh, yeah. I keep forgetting that part.

 

[jwelectric]

It is just an opinion like all posts on this forum.

IMO we have been talking about the rules, not the reality.

I must say that this is one fine job of chawing that backer on both sides of the face.

First I don?t think that each and every post is opinion and you prove this with your comment to Larry.

Larry
I have asked many times for someone to post the requirement that the metal pipes are to be electrically continuous and no one has posted this either.
The only rule that any code enforcement official can enforce is one that can be pointed out. If they can?t quote the section in violation then there is no violation.

Unless someone can post a code section that requires the hot and cold to be bonded together then there is no requirement to bond the two to each other.

 

[Mgraw]

Unless someone can post a code section that requires the hot and cold to be bonded together then there is no requirement to bond the two to each other.

There is not a section that says hot and cold need to be bonded. But there is not a section that says hot and cold are one system either. If the AHJ considers the hot and cold as two systems where in the NEC does it say they both don't need to be bonded. You say the ICC IPC considers hot and cold as one system yet they refer to the hot water piping as the " HOT WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM". With molded polybutylene tanks in water heaters and plastic faucets how would you bond the hot water system?

 

[LarryFine]

With molded polybutylene tanks in water heaters and plastic faucets how would you bond the hot water system?

I'll rephrase: I'd like to see one metallically-plumbed building where the hot and cold are electrically insulated from one another even without the water heater in place.

 

[Lectric Lanny]

What nobody has mentioned so far, is the desireability of having a bond to the hot water system, for grounding induced voltages from close lightning strikes. If you have baseboard heat all around, it can act as a giant antenna, picking up significant charges from close lightning strikes, Better to have a real bond on this piping, with the ground rod in the bonding loop, rather than just the #12 in the supply circuit to the oil burner.

 

[Ddexter]

Hot Water

Hot Water

I would agree tha the water piping systems in a residential application are connected in maners that are consistent with the code for bonding.
For example the plates that are installed where the shutoff conection are made are in fact a bonding jumper and could be argued in a board of appeals and likely win.
The code in article 250.66(b) talks of an Effictive Ground Path( bonding shall be provided arround any equipment likely to be removed).
I feel that the code is not containing itself to residential only and is generalizing this section for other than residential for the sake of simplicity.
We could offer an ammendment to the NEC to devide this section into residential and Other than residential installations.
I agree that in definitions would be a great place for the difference in the system .However in Websters we already have a definition of system(an arangement of) so we could conclude that the water piping system is an arangement of piping for the type of water it serves and therefore be clasified as a domestic water system or other water system's.250.104(a) (1) General states that metal piping systems installed in or attached to a structure shall be bonded.
The key wording here for me is piping systems.
For the record I am an Electrical inspector and have not rejected anyone for not bonding the hotwater heater. The AHJ can look at the water heater as a removable piece and per 250.66 could require bonding which in my estimation would consist
of a 6" peice of copper and two clamps. In old residential properties this could be applicable however does not have any merrit in newer construction. In pre 70's construction where the shutoff conections were not made of copper plate like they are currently fabricated. The water piping was not connected together except at the facuet and water heater locations creating a possible shock hazard when one or more of these connections were removed. This could place a plumber in line with a ground fault. All this would lead to the fact that the code does not define the water system(s) to allow the section to be used for both residential and comercial as in DI systems and other chemical water systems in use today.
Could we agree on this ????
Also as a side note, Inspectors are not infalible and do make misinterpitation of the code. We make a concerted effort to provide code articales for all rejection.
If the AHJ cannot provide an articleto back up the rejection it would cause me to argue the fact with code articles to back up my position. Is this always the best step ????
That depends on the inspector.