AHJ Grounding Electrode Requirement

[don_resqcapt19]

If Illinois has not made some sort of amendment then the bonding across the water heater is a violation of 250.104(A)(1) as this section is clear that the bonding conductor MUST be to the service enclosure, the neutral at the service, one of the ECG, or a grounding electrode. The only part of the metal piping system that fits that definition is the first five feet that enters the building and then only if there is 10 feet in contact with earth.

First, Illinois does not adopt the NEC on a state wide basis. The adoption is on a local basis.
Second, I fail to understand how providing more bonding than you say the code requires is a code violation.

 

[jwelectric]

First, Illinois does not adopt the NEC on a state wide basis. The adoption is on a local basis.
Second, I fail to understand how providing more bonding than you say the code requires is a code violation.

If someone is going to say that the cold and hot potable water lines constitute two separate metal water piping systems and that both are required to be bonded by 250.104(A) and this can be achieved by bonding across a water heater I would ask by which code section are they coming up with this from?

If the code section used comes from the NEC and that section is 250.104(A)(1) without an amendment then it is a violation of the very code section referenced. If one is using 250.104(A) to say that the two pipes of the potable water systems are two separate systems then the bonding jumper used for each pipe must land on those items outlined in 250.104(A).

Section 250.104(A)(1) identifies four places that the conductor being used to bond a metal water pipe is to be bonded to and the cold water or the hot water pipe is not one of them.

 

[K8MHZ]

If someone is going to say that the cold and hot potable water lines constitute two separate metal water piping systems and that both are required to be bonded by 250.104(A) and this can be achieved by bonding across a water heater I would ask by which code section are they coming up with this from?

If the code section used comes from the NEC and that section is 250.104(A)(1) without an amendment then it is a violation of the very code section referenced. If one is using 250.104(A) to say that the two pipes of the potable water systems are two separate systems then the bonding jumper used for each pipe must land on those items outlined in 250.104(A).

Section 250.104(A)(1) identifies four places that the conductor being used to bond a metal water pipe is to be bonded to and the cold water or the hot water pipe is not one of them.

Even if the water pipe is being used as an electrode?

 

[jwelectric]

Even if the water pipe is being used as an electrode?

There has been a couple of post in this thread addressing a metal water pipe electrode.

What I have been discussing is the requirement of 250.104 which is entirely different than the requirement of 250.52(A)(1) therefore I have ignored them until now unless it was directly related to the discussion.

I am sure that you understand the difference between the two.

The .52 requirement is for electrode and must be done within the first five feet or done outside. The .104 requirement is done on any accessible point on the metal piping system and does not require a bond at the water heater as some here seem to be sold on.

Do you understand?

 

[jwelectric]

For something that bears no confusion for you, you are confusing the heck out of me. The above comment refers to the sketch. By what you have posted previously in this thread, the "rest of the piping" can't be a complete metal system, because the first 5 feet is isolated from the rest of the system. You already stated that this is not a complete system! So, 250.104(A)(1) wouldn't apply. I will repeat again that this code section bites the big one!

See the post above this one and see if that helps

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If someone is going to say that the cold and hot potable water lines constitute two separate metal water piping systems and that both are required to be bonded by 250.104(A) and this can be achieved by bonding across a water heater I would ask by which code section are they coming up with this from?

If the code section used comes from the NEC and that section is 250.104(A)(1) without an amendment then it is a violation of the very code section referenced. If one is using 250.104(A) to say that the two pipes of the potable water systems are two separate systems then the bonding jumper used for each pipe must land on those items outlined in 250.104(A).

Section 250.104(A)(1) identifies four places that the conductor being used to bond a metal water pipe is to be bonded to and the cold water or the hot water pipe is not one of them.

I see your point from a code wording stand point. From a real world and technical standpoint, I see no issue. If the faucet sets or other metal parts can bond the two water systems together, I see no real reason why a bonding jumper of the wire type cannot do the same thing.

 

[K8MHZ]

There has been a couple of post in this thread addressing a metal water pipe electrode.

What I have been discussing is the requirement of 250.104 which is entirely different than the requirement of 250.52(A)(1) therefore I have ignored them until now unless it was directly related to the discussion.

I am sure that you understand the difference between the two.

The .52 requirement is for electrode and must be done within the first five feet or done outside. The .104 requirement is done on any accessible point on the metal piping system and does not require a bond at the water heater as some here seem to be sold on.

Do you understand?

Maybe I already did.....

So, bonding the hot and cold pipes together at the water heater is permitted, but not required?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Maybe I already did.....

So, bonding the hot and cold pipes together at the water heater is permitted, but not required?

Required , not at the water heater but some place, assuming metal (copper). What is required is that the water piping be bonded.

Opinion #1. Metal piping supplying the structure. 250.52

Opinion #2. Poly piping supplying the structure 250.104

Both 250.52 and 250.104 need to comply with 250.4(A)(3)(4).

Trying to explain plumbing in electrical terms.

If you bonded only ONE EGC in a system would that exempt you from bonding the rest of the EGCs?

Try taking your electrical expertise and use it to understand plumbing!

 

[jwelectric]

I see your point from a code wording stand point. From a real world and technical standpoint, I see no issue. If the faucet sets or other metal parts can bond the two water systems together, I see no real reason why a bonding jumper of the wire type cannot do the same thing.

I see nothing wrong with any bonding but it is not required if the plumbing don?t do it.

The requirement to make metal pipes electrically continuous was removed from the code many years ago. There is no way the NEC can mandate anything in the plumbing and unless someone can guarantee that the metal pipe will remain total metal it is useless in the first place.

My home has copper water lines. Just after moving in the water line for the icemaker started leaking so the wife called a plumber to dry up the floor. His repair left about 10 inches of the copper replaced with some sort of white looking stuff that my meter won?t read continuity on.

The previous owners had installed a saddle valve for the icemaker and the plumber fixed it like it should have been done but now I worry about getting electrocuted when I take a shower, hope it rains tonight as I am starting to stink and I am scared to shower in the bath. :lol:

 

[jwelectric]

Maybe I already did.....

So, bonding the hot and cold pipes together at the water heater is permitted, but not required?

I can find no requirement to do so and can also show where it could be a violation should some inspector require this mess.

 

[jwelectric]

Required , not at the water heater but some place, assuming metal (copper). What is required is that the water piping be bonded.

but not required to be made electrically continuous. Just how would this be done should threaded pipe be used?

Opinion #1. Metal piping supplying the structure. 250.52

Installation of the grounding electrode conductor

Opinion #2. Poly piping supplying the structure 250.104

If the entire rest is a complete piping system

Both 250.52 and 250.104 need to comply with 250.4(A)(3)(4).

Please take a few minutes and explain the fault current that the plumbing pipes are intended to carry

Trying to explain plumbing in electrical terms.

If you bonded only ONE EGC in a system would that exempt you from bonding the rest of the EGCs?

In my opinion would be like holding an apple up and describing an orange

Try taking your electrical expertise and use it to understand plumbing!

All one has to do is study a little and plumbing is easy to understand. The plumbing inspector's test was easy enough for me to pass

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I see nothing wrong with any bonding but it is not required if the plumbing don?t do it.

The requirement to make metal pipes electrically continuous was removed from the code many years ago. There is no way the NEC can mandate anything in the plumbing and unless someone can guarantee that the metal pipe will remain total metal it is useless in the first place.

My home has copper water lines. Just after moving in the water line for the icemaker started leaking so the wife called a plumber to dry up the floor. His repair left about 10 inches of the copper replaced with some sort of white looking stuff that my meter won?t read continuity on.

The previous owners had installed a saddle valve for the icemaker and the plumber fixed it like it should have been done but now I worry about getting electrocuted when I take a shower, hope it rains tonight as I am starting to stink and I am scared to shower in the bath. :lol:

Maybe the rule in 250.104 needs to be changed to require bonding the water and not the piping.
I don't really think that bonding the water in the pipes would accomplish anything. I agree that there is no way to make sure the pipe remains 100% metallic. Should the pipe bonding requirement just go away?

 

[jwelectric]

In my honest opinion I do feel that in some cases it is the most foolish thing I have ever seen.

A while back in a strip mall a friend renovated a small shop that had an existing 400 amp service. This little shop had one bathroom which had an under the cabinet water heater. I don’t remember but I think it was a 120 volt heater.
There was less than 10 feet of copper water pipe in the entire store but guess what?


Yep you got it, 1/0. The bonding conductor cost more than the entire plumbing. I could touch the main shut off valve and the valves at the sink and water closet without moving. There was more supply lines going to the sink and toilet than there was copper. The main shutoff valve was supplied from the meter with nonmetallic pipe.

There have been a couple of folks that has asked the question, just what does this accomplish?
I haven’t seen this answered yet and I have been fairly active in this thread hoping someone could come up with something.

It seems that some think it is to carry fault current. I ask what fault current. I always thought that was the job of the EGC. I had no idea that the plumbing pipes were installed to carry fault current. I didn’t know that the plumbing pipes were part of the electrical system unless it was in contact with the earth for 10 feet or more.
I have also heard the belief that it was so the neighbor would have a return path should they lose their neutral but I wonder if this is the complete truth.

I believe it is because the old codes required the metal water pipe to be part of the electrode system and throughout the years plumbers found out that water will flow through nonmetallic pipes. Being this bond was in the code before plumbers got this smart it remained part of the code simply because there hasn’t been an electrician smart enough to explain to the CMP just how stupid this is in some cases such as outlined above. Until one of us gets smart enough to give the CMP a good reason to stop this foolishness it will remain part of the code.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I can find no requirement to do so and can also show where it could be a violation should some inspector require this mess.

Please show me where this violates the NEC. You are telling a whole bunch of us that we are wrong. If so we need to stop what we are doing NOW.

 

[jwelectric]

Please show me where this violates the NEC. You are telling a whole bunch of us that we are wrong. If so we need to stop what we are doing NOW.

If an electrical inspector is going to say that the hot and cold are separate systems and both are required to be bonded then they both have to be bonded as outlined below;
250.104 Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel.
(A) Metal Water Piping. The metal water piping system shall be bonded as required in (A)(1), (A)(2), or (A)(3) of this section. The bonding jumper(s) shall be installed in accordance with 250.64(A), (B), and (E). The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be accessible.
(1) General. Metal water piping system(s) installed in or attached to a building or structure shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or to the one or more grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance with Table 250.66 except as permitted in 250.104(A)(2) and(A)(3).

If you look closely to (A)(1) above you can see that the bonding conductor that attaches to this piping system MUST bond to the, 1- service equipment enclosure, 2- the grounded conductor at the service, 3- the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or 4- one or more grounding electrodes.

I have read this many times and I still can?t see where bonding this other piping system is allowed to be done to another piping system. To do so would be a violation of the very section of the NEC that some claim requires the hot to be bonded. The bonding across a water heater is not mandated anywhere in the NEC. It is something made up in the field by those who think they know what they are doing.

The bottom line is the plumbing code calls both the hot and cold lines that supply fixtures that people are going to use for cooking, and eating are both potable water and constitutes only one system.

 

[kwired]

I believe it is because the old codes required the metal water pipe to be part of the electrode system and throughout the years plumbers found out that water will flow through nonmetallic pipes. Being this bond was in the code before plumbers got this smart it remained part of the code simply because there hasn?t been an electrician smart enough to explain to the CMP just how stupid this is in some cases such as outlined above. Until one of us gets smart enough to give the CMP a good reason to stop this foolishness it will remain part of the code.

I think you are going somewhere with that statement. Old codes did not require the GEC to hit the pipe within 5 feet of where it enters building either - made no sense to require that before all this nonmetallic stuff started showing up. If you needed to ground an existing circuit that did not contain an EGC - run a conductor to nearest water pipe. Today it is not as reliable to depend on that being a good grounding source and that allowance has been removed from the code.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...

There have been a couple of folks that has asked the question, just what does this accomplish?
I haven?t seen this answered yet and I have been fairly active in this thread hoping someone could come up with something.

In most cases it doesn't really accomplish anything. It would let a fault to the pipe be cleared, but how often do we have faults to the pipe that are not also faults to the EGC of the faulted circuit. The other thing it could accomplish is to raise the voltage of the bonded pipe to match that of all of the other conductive objects that are connected to the electrical grounding system. Under high fault currents there will be votlage drop on the fault clearing path and everything connected to the electrical grounding system will be raised to this voltage, but this voltage would only exist to "remote earth". Unbonded sections of metal piping may not really have a connection to "remote" earth so there may not be an issue.

It seems that some think it is to carry fault current. I ask what fault current. I always thought that was the job of the EGC. I had no idea that the plumbing pipes were installed to carry fault current. I didn?t know that the plumbing pipes were part of the electrical system unless it was in contact with the earth for 10 feet or more.

Well 104(B) requires bonding if the pipe is "likely" to become energized, so the code panel must assume that the piping would be part of the fault clearing path. I have an issue with the term "likely to become energized", because in my opinion, it is not likely that the piping will become energized. Previous codes used the wording "may become energized". It is my opinion that the term "may become energized" would always require the bonding, but the current term does not. Note that CMP 5 says that these two terms mean exactly the same thing.

I have also heard the belief that it was so the neighbor would have a return path should they lose their neutral but I wonder if this is the complete truth.

I don't believe that was ever the intent of the code, but that is the result when there is a common metal underground water piping system. You can lose the service neutral and have no idea you have lost it because the neutral current has another path via the water piping system and your neighbors connection to the water pipe.

I believe it is because the old codes required the metal water pipe to be part of the electrode system and throughout the years plumbers found out that water will flow through nonmetallic pipes. Being this bond was in the code before plumbers got this smart it remained part of the code simply because there hasn?t been an electrician smart enough to explain to the CMP just how stupid this is in some cases such as outlined above. Until one of us gets smart enough to give the CMP a good reason to stop this foolishness it will remain part of the code.

Well a lot of proposals over the past few cycles have been the result of forum discussions like this one. There is a little over two years before the proposals for the 2017 code are due.

 

[Strathead]

If an electrical inspector is going to say that the hot and cold are separate systems and both are required to be bonded then they both have to be bonded as outlined below;
250.104 Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel.
(A) Metal Water Piping. The metal water piping system shall be bonded as required in (A)(1), (A)(2), or (A)(3) of this section. The bonding jumper(s) shall be installed in accordance with 250.64(A), (B), and (E). The points of attachment of the bonding jumper(s) shall be accessible.
(1) General. Metal water piping system(s) installed in or attached to a building or structure shall be bonded to the service equipment enclosure, the grounded conductor at the service, the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or to the one or more grounding electrodes used. The bonding jumper(s) shall be sized in accordance with Table 250.66 except as permitted in 250.104(A)(2) and(A)(3).

If you look closely to (A)(1) above you can see that the bonding conductor that attaches to this piping system MUST bond to the, 1- service equipment enclosure, 2- the grounded conductor at the service, 3- the grounding electrode conductor where of sufficient size, or 4- one or more grounding electrodes.

I have read this many times and I still can?t see where bonding this other piping system is allowed to be done to another piping system. To do so would be a violation of the very section of the NEC that some claim requires the hot to be bonded. The bonding across a water heater is not mandated anywhere in the NEC. It is something made up in the field by those who think they know what they are doing.

The bottom line is the plumbing code calls both the hot and cold lines that supply fixtures that people are going to use for cooking, and eating are both potable water and constitutes only one system.

I think I may FINALLY see where you are coming from, I think. Perhaps others missed the nuance you were resting your hat on too! Over my career, the water piping system has been a grounding electrode conductor. As such any point along it was part of the grounding system. As long as the piping above ground is metal, the electrical conductivity of it doesn't change, so I felt that a bond from hot to cold which effectively travelled along the copper pipe to the cold (to service) bond point was a valid means of bonding the hot water system. Electrically this is effective, but all along you have been contending that 250.104 does not allow this section of water piping to be part of the return path. :slaphead: I have posted a copule times to advocate against 250.104(A) and your point is just another piece of the puzzle that shows this is a poorly written code section that has no business being in the code.

The definition of a water piping system is still ambiguous to me, even though you believe it is clear. I think that we should start using your definition, and donating a 6 pack to the plumber on every job to ensure that he puts one dielectric union on every project, thereby rendering 250.104(A) moot!

 

[jxofaltrds]

"The purpose of this article is to consider the requirements for bonding in 2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) 250.104, Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel.1 Consider the simple hot and cold water lines on a 10-gallon ceiling-mounted hot water heater shown in figure 1. The heater serves a single sink in a small lunchroom directly below the heater."

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/2011/07/over-code-the-anatomy-of-a-code-change-proposal/

 

[Strathead]

"The purpose of this article is to consider the requirements for bonding in 2011 National Electrical Code (NEC) 250.104, Bonding of Piping Systems and Exposed Structural Steel.1 Consider the simple hot and cold water lines on a 10-gallon ceiling-mounted hot water heater shown in figure 1. The heater serves a single sink in a small lunchroom directly below the heater."

http://www.iaei.org/magazine/2011/07/over-code-the-anatomy-of-a-code-change-proposal/

This article puts a spin on it similar to how I interpreted it, and contrary to Rock of Marne. I still disagree with their solution though. Can anyone explain why metal water piping needs a bond larger that what it may become energized with? Or, if you can, why gas piping, building steel etc doesn't need bonding per 250.66?