Inspector wants water pipe bonded to Intersystem Grounding Bridge

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rduke

Member
Location
Savannah GA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer/Network Engineer
Hi all,

-My first post here. I am an electrical engineer and network engineer. Most of my electrical work is related to data centers and enterprise network equipment power (UPS, SPD's etc.) so I have a very narrow focus these days. This issue is not related to work though, and definitely not DIY so please bear with me.

Termites ate up my home's power service pole. When it fell it damaged my overhead service line’s attachment point. I am paying a LOT of money to a contractor and GA Power to move the service underground. All I want is for it to be done by the book, and that is my concern. I would welcome some expert comments on what the inspector wants.

The story:

The house was built in 1985 and the original ground was only to the cold water copper pipe on concrete slab.

The existing ground was supplemented around 2007 with two 10 ft. ground rods. The inspector was happy with the work done at the time.

Last week: My contractor mounted a new combination meter enclosure with built in disconnect close to the old meter. The plan is to do a cutover and remove the old equipment next week.

The inspector came by and was happy with the two new ground rods, but not the water pipe bond. Even though it is all copper, it does not qualify as a grounding electrode for several reasons, so that means it should simply be bonded right? The rub is where the inspector wants the water pipe bonded. The inspector wants it attached to the Intersystem Grounding Bridge - outside. I want it inside the customer load side of the service disconnect where it is protected and the neutral to ground bond exists. Please correct me if I am missing something, but 250-104 B says I can have the water pipe bonded to one of 5 locations, and the one I want to use is this option: "Grounded conductor at the service", and inspector says no.

I am just looking for some input and/or advice. It does not make sense to me, but I wanted to check with the experts to be sure. After discussing it with two of the electricians doing the work, they were not of much help as related to code compliance, which is the reason I am asking here. Thanks all. Sorry for the long post as I am detail oriented.
 
The intersystem bonding terminal can not be used for this purpose and the inspector is incorrect. Your interior metal water piping must be bonded per 250.104(A) (not B). I'm understanding you to mean that your service disconnect is the new meter/main combo and the panel inside the house is not service equipment?
 
Thanks for the reply. Sorry I did not provide those details as the post was already very long. Correct, The new meter/main combo with disconnect is outside. Contractor has a new 4 wire SE cable ready to attach to my existing service equipment inside during the cutover. During cutover they will be separating the NG bond in my existing service equipment. The copper water pipe is mostly under the concrete slab, but the supply to the house turns out to be PVC and the first 5 ft is not accessible once it enters the slab. So by today's code it would not suffice as an electrode, so I am thinking it just needs to be bonded. Sadly, my contractor said I did not have to bond it, and I said OK so someone drives a nail into a power line in the attic and that nail hits the pipe. That is when he agreed that maybe it should be : )
 
If the load side of the disconnect means a sub panel then you cannot bond the water pipe there. It must be connected to the service equipment. The intersystem bond should not be used for anything other than "other systems"- tv, phone etc.
 
OK, the your water pipe bond has to connect at the new meter/main outside per 250.104(A). The old existing panel is no longer an allowed connection point as it is no longer service equipment.
 
I think your confusion is using 250.104(B) when you should be using 250.104(A). But you are correct that using the intersystem bonding bar would not be allowed.
 
Texie,
Understood and agree. It is just the point of attachment that is of concern. My new outdoor service equipment is where I wanted to bond to. The inspector is the one wanting to go to the intersystem bridge.
 
rduke said:
Texie,
Understood and agree. It is just the point of attachment that is of concern. My new outdoor service equipment is where I wanted to bond to. The inspector is the one wanting to go to the intersystem bridge.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The inspector needs training.
 
texie said:
OK, the your water pipe bond has to connect at the new meter/main outside per 250.104(A). The old existing panel is no longer an allowed connection point as it is no longer service equipment.
Click to expand...
On a side tangent about this not bonding a waterline at what is now a sub panel, what do ya’ll say about an example of a house that is 100’ away from the service how do you bond the waterline or gas line there?
 
Thanks folks. I appreciate the feedback. I told my contractor up front that I am picky about the work being done. When he said "what do you mean by that". I just replied, well first off it needs to be up to code, and I want to see torque wrenches used on the lugs - no guess work allowed : )
 
Ah yes Texie, 250.104(A) is what I will bring up when the inspector comes back. Hopefully I will not make him mad since he has final say. I will also review this with my contractor so hopefully they will back me up.
 
rduke said:
Thanks folks. I appreciate the feedback. I told my contractor up front that I am picky about the work being done. When he said "what do you mean by that". I just replied, well first off it needs to be up to code, and I want to see torque wrenches used on the lugs - no guess work allowed : )
Click to expand...
No you are not being picky.
"Code is code
Its ok for someone else
but not if it costs me time and money"
Mike Holt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top