250.32 (b)(2)

[rickl]

what are my options for changing out a old 30 sub panel, with 10-3 uf no ground wire as the feeder ( all 3 wires are insulated ) & a metal water pipe between the house & the pump house. the load in the pump house is a 240 volt pump & 120 volt light & gfci plug. it would be almost impossible to run a new feeder.
the old panel has all the grounding & grounded conductors tied together & bonded to the well casing.
option 1 hook up new panel like the old one.
option 2 seperate the grounding & neutral & use the water pipe as the egc.
option 3 install a plastic nipple in the water pipe at the pump house.

this is were i need some expert advice, i don't like option 1 due to the possible hazard of parallel grounding & neutral. i don't see a hazard with option 2 ?. option 3 i'm not a plumber

thanks for the help

 

[hillbilly]

It really depends on which Code cycle you're under.

If under the 2005 NEC, I would go with Option 1, and make sure that the water line and well casing were bonded to the well house (feeder) panel.
Size this GEC and bonding conductor per NEC 250.66

If under the 2008 NEC , I would go with option 2...........
I would make certain that the metal water pipe was continuous between the two buildings and was properly bonded to the Service ground at the supply end (at the house).
The water line must meet the requirements of 250.53(D)1

I would also bond the well casing and water line to the well house panel grounding bar.
Size this GEC and bonding conductor per 250.66

I would probably use something like this in the well house.

http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=36242-296-HOM612L10DSC&lpage=none

I would also make sure that the #10cu feeder was protected at 30 Amps at it's supply.

Don't forget the GFCI for the receptacle.

Just my opinion

steve

 

[C3PO]

Option 1 = Not code complaint because you have a continuous metallic path between the two buildings.

Option 2 = Not code complaint

Option 3 = If you could put in some plastic into the water line so that it would no longer be a continuous metal path between the buildings then this would be the only code complaint oprion that you have listed

 

[infinity]

Option 1 = Not code complaint because you have a continuous metallic path between the two buildings.

Option 2 = Not code complaint

Option 3 = If you could put in some plastic into the water line so that it would no longer be a continuous metal path between the buildings then this would be the only code complaint option that you have listed

I agree #1 & #2 are no good, if he uses option #3 where would the plastic pipe need to be installed?

 

[rickl]

{option #3 where would the plastic pipe need to be installed? } my quess would be the pipe entering the well house.
looks like option 3 is what i'll do. but i still don't see a hazard with option 2, i can use metal conduit as the equipment ground but i can't use the metal water pipe that is bonded to the main panel. if this was a branch circuit extension i could use the metal water pipe as my equipment grounding conductor 250.130 (c) (1). this is an existing installation if it was new or feasable, i would run 4 new conductors.
maybe somebody can explain the true hazard in this installation, beside not code complaint (not being a smart azz, just trying to understand the hazards)

 

[C3PO]

I agree #1 & #2 are no good, if he uses option #3 where would the plastic pipe need to be installed?

Good guestion, I would think anywhere before it enters the second building.

 

[C3PO]

if this was a branch circuit extension i could use the metal water pipe as my equipment grounding conductor 250.130 (c) (1). this is an existing installation

250.130(C)(1) does not give you permission to hook your EGC just anywhere you want on the water pipe. You would have to make your connection on the first five feet where it enters the building. (250.52(A)(1))

 

[rickl]

{250.130(C)(1) does not give you permission to hook your EGC just anywhere you want on the water pipe. You would have to make your connection on the first five feet where it enters the building. (250.52(A)(1))}
after reading 250.52(a)(1) i would have to agree with you.

 

[hillbilly]

It really depends on which Code cycle you're under.

If under the 2005 NEC, I would go with Option 1, and make sure that the water line and well casing were bonded to the well house (feeder) panel.
Size this GEC and bonding conductor per NEC 250.66

If under the 2008 NEC , I would go with option 2...........
I would make certain that the metal water pipe was continuous between the two buildings and was properly bonded to the Service ground at the supply end (at the house).
The water line must meet the requirements of 250.53(D)1

I would also bond the well casing and water line to the well house panel grounding bar.
Size this GEC and bonding conductor per 250.66

Just my opinion

steve

Oops!, I must have been asleep when I replied to your post.
Disregard my response until I have time to think it through.
You're correct about creating a parallel path for the return (neutral) current.

 

[mcclary's electrical]

250.130(C)(1) does not give you permission to hook your EGC just anywhere you want on the water pipe. You would have to make your connection on the first five feet where it enters the building. (250.52(A)(1))

you're referring to a GEC,,,,,he's talking about a EGC

 

[suemarkp]

but i still don't see a hazard with option 2, i can use metal conduit as the equipment ground but i can't use the metal water pipe that is bonded to the main panel. if this was a branch circuit extension i could use the metal water pipe as my equipment grounding conductor 250.130 (c) (1).

You don't see the hazard??? If a plumber comes and changes the pipe to plastic, you've totally lost your bonding path. Even fixing a leak with a non-metallic segment will kill your bonding path.

How good of a conductor is this pipe -- is it all soldered copper, or a mix of steel, copper, and corroded fittings? Your example of 250.130 allowing this for branch circuits, well you're going to have a bunch of EGC's terminated on that pipe. Should be a bit more obvious if that 5' pipe section was removed and the plumber sees all the wires hanging there. He may think to call an electrician. A buried water pipe is not an obvious bonding path. A buried conduit is.

I'd play a plumber for a day and install a non conductive pipe segment. This is easiest when you have access to one end and can move that end to couple on a new pipe.

 

[C3PO]

you're referring to a GEC,,,,,he's talking about a EGC

No I'm not

 

[hurk27]

250.130(C)(1) does not give you permission to hook your EGC just anywhere you want on the water pipe. You would have to make your connection on the first five feet where it enters the building. (250.52(A)(1))

the problem is this pipe is not part of the grounding electrode system for the service, the service connects to the first 10 feet of buried pipe at the house not here in the pump house.

option 3 is the only code compliant one I can see,

 

[C3PO]

option 3 is the only code compliant one I can see,

I agree .

 

[rickl]

went out & played plumber today, changed out the short metal pipe entering the pump house to pvc pipe
thanks for all the help

 

[tryinghard]

what are my options for changing out a old 30 sub panel, with 10-3 uf no ground wire as the feeder ( all 3 wires are insulated ) & a metal water pipe between the house & the pump house...
option 1 hook up new panel like the old one.
option 2 seperate the grounding & neutral & use the water pipe as the egc.
option 3 install a plastic nipple in the water pipe at the pump house...

IMO focus on the electrical so I say option 2 modified, ignor the water pipe. Run a new feeder.