Would the metal parts of water pipe need to be bonded

H

hhsting

Senior Member
Location
Glen bunie, md, us
Occupation
Junior plan reviewer
I have underground water pipe. It enters as plastic pipe polyethie pipe then transition to metal then to plastic tube that feeds home. See below pic. Would the metal part of the pipe required to be bonded to service disconnect or not by NEC 2023? Contractor has bonded it but builder of the home didn’t do it and was wondering is it required or not by NEC 2023

63bbd2d9d327fee2742794d6530710c0.jpg
 
infinity said:
I agree with Augie, bonding is not required but it is not prohibited either.
Click to expand...

Ah thanks. Contractor installed it but they provided total one #4awg bonding jumper from cold metal pipe that bonds 2 - 200A service panelboard. There is also ufer which is bonded to the one #4 awg bonding jumper. Each 200A panelboard has #4/0 service conductors incoming.

Would not the bonding jumper #4 awg undersized?
 
hhsting said:
Ah thanks. Contractor installed it but they provided total one #4awg bonding jumper from cold metal pipe that bonds 2 - 200A service panelboard. There is also ufer which is bonded to the one #4 awg bonding jumper. Each 200A panelboard has #4/0 service conductors incoming.

Would not the bonding jumper #4 awg undersized?
Click to expand...
Are you confusing 250.104 with 250.66
 
roger said:
Are you confusing 250.104 with 250.66
Click to expand...

Well the picture post one the black underground part is not metal so I dont think its underground water metal pipe electrode. So I dont think 250.66 applies. Its just that section of metal pipe above ground. But as mentioned by others 250.104 is not required either.

The solar contractor when installing solar panels and its AC solar disconnect in this case did bond it to service panel. i am guessing either confusing 250.66 or 250.104.

The house was built 2 years ago and the builder didnt have any bonding jumper to service panelboard
 
hhsting said:
Well the picture post one the black underground part is not metal so I dont think its underground water metal pipe electrode. So I dont think 250.66 applies. Its just that section of metal pipe above ground. But as mentioned by others 250.104 is not required either.
Click to expand...
So if it is not required is there any code section that would govern the size? IMO no.
 
I agree with the others not anything that would become energized.
The thing to watchout for is hose bibs,
At one time it was common for cable tv/ satellite dish people to intersystem bond to a hose bib, and when those get converted to PEX it can be a real pain to deal with if its is far from the grounding system like on the other side of a house.
 
I have no idea why contractors would do such a thing. Water metal pipe was permitted as no bonding jumper to service panelboard previously by AHJ when house was built a year ago. Then here comes the solar contractor and he bonds that small metal part of the water pipe and its not required ripping most of insulation, drilling thru wood etc.

Now its time to tell take it out not required.
 
hhsting said:
Homeowner is complaining that if plumber requires maintenance then he might say call an electrician to remove that part so that he can work on that part giving additional cost
Click to expand...
A code official shouldn't be requiring something to be removed that isn't a code violation. One would have no authority to do so. Design considerations certainly can exceed the code as long as they do not create a violation. Certainly the homeowner can remove it if he wants.

Three decades ago we had a few locales who wanted a bonding jumper to the gas pipe at the water heater so we starting putting them on when doing service upgrades. One inspector failed the installation and wanted the bonding jumper removed. He said that it wasn't a good idea. I told him the guy in the next town over wants it on. He still made me return to the job to remove it even though there was no code violation. Being young and dumb back then I chose not to argue.
 
infinity said:
A code official shouldn't be requiring something to be removed that isn't a code violation. One would have no authority to do so. Design considerations certainly can exceed the code as long as they do not create a violation. Certainly the homeowner can remove it if he wants.

Three decades ago we had a few locales who wanted a bonding jumper to the gas pipe at the water heater so we starting putting them on when doing service upgrades. One inspector failed the installation and wanted the bonding jumper removed. He said that it wasn't a good idea. I told him the guy in the next town over wants it on. He still made me return to the job to remove it even though there was no code violation. Being young and dumb back then I chose not to argue.
Click to expand...

Homeowner is saying to the solar contractor who installed it to remove it. Inspector plan review is not saying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top