Water pipe as an electrode

Status
Not open for further replies.

K8MHZ

Senior Member
Location
Michigan. It's a beautiful peninsula, I've looked
Occupation
Electrician
I will ask this to the inspector next time I see him, but he did something I don't quite understand. This guy is very knowledgeable about the code.


This occured at an inspection of an existing residence. At one time, residence used well water for the entire water service. City water became available (long time ago, still metal pipe) and house is now connected to city water. Well and pump remained in service for outside / sprinkler use. Well point all metal, likely 20 feet or so down and was used as the grounding electrode. The pipe from the pump was no longer continuous to the rest of the metal water pipe. The inspector made the EC remove the electrode conductor from the pipe for the the well system and made him connect a new one to the city water side.

Now, I can understand why the city water service is required to be used as the electrode, what I don't understand is why the pump and associated metal piping are not bonded to the rest of the metal water pipes served by the city system. This could be done very easily as the two systems are only inches from each other. The way it is now, the only grounding conductor to the well is through the 12 AWG Romex that runs the pump.

One thing I should point out is that the pump and well are both in the basement. For the well system, no metal water pipe comes from outside the house to the inside, unless you count the well below the floor to be outside. The water gets from the well to the outside through a spigot and that is never under ground.

This is a 100 amp service. In my mind, the two metal water systems should be bonded together with the same size conductor as the city system needs for bonding, a #4 I believe. I see the metal well as being as good as an electrode as the city system and capable as carrying as much fault current to the earth as the city system, therefore (to me) the 12 AWG would be insufficient as the only means to bond the pump and related piping. Even if we disregard the low impedance earth connection, the metal pipe is still exposed metal likely to become energized (by virtue of the 120 VAC at the pump).

Now, Don, the inspector is a walking code book and is usually, if not always, right.

So I am thinking I am missing something......

Thanks for the feedback in advance.
 
You said "The pipe from the pump was no longer continuous to the rest of the metal water pipe"

So it sounds, not being there to inspect, like what the inspector did is correct.

Read 250.112(M). Does this apply to your installation?????
 
I don't see where leaving the gec connected to the well casing would hurt anything and I see nothing that says you can't.
 
I don't see where leaving the gec connected to the well casing would hurt anything and I see nothing that says you can't.

I agree with Dennis.

Is the inspector using 250.56 for removing the well? I mean are they within 6' of each other? You make it sound like they are.

Exhibit 250.25.

This could be his reasoning.
 
You said "The pipe from the pump was no longer continuous to the rest of the metal water pipe"

So it sounds, not being there to inspect, like what the inspector did is correct.

Read 250.112(M). Does this apply to your installation?????

No, pump is not submersed, it is above ground. (L) would be the correct choice.

112 just states 'shall be grounded' but does not say how. As it sits, there is a 12 AWG copper wire from the panel to the pump for grounding, which is bonded to the casing, etc., at the pump.

Look at 250.104 (A)(1) which leads us to 250.66 which states a minimum size of 8 AWG copper. Not the 4 AWG I would think needed, but it does make the 12 a violation if left as the only connection to the GES.
 
No, pump is not submersed, it is above ground. (L) would be the correct choice.

112 just states 'shall be grounded' but does not say how. As it sits, there is a 12 AWG copper wire from the panel to the pump for grounding, which is bonded to the casing, etc., at the pump.

Look at 250.104 (A)(1) which leads us to 250.66 which states a minimum size of 8 AWG copper. Not the 4 AWG I would think needed, but it does make the 12 a violation if left as the only connection to the GES.

250.104 is for the interior piping. It does not apply to the well.

250.52 would apply IF the first sentence of 250.52(A)(1) was met.
 
I agree with Dennis.

Is the inspector using 250.56 for removing the well? I mean are they within 6' of each other? You make it sound like they are.

Exhibit 250.25.

This could be his reasoning.

OK, I am not following you, but, the well and the city supply are on opposite ends of the house. I have no problem with the well not being allowed as an electrode, even though it would make an excellent one. Nothing in 250.56 would mandate the removal of the conductor. 56 just requires additional electrodes and sets forth the spacing.

I don't have 250.25 in the 05 and that is what this job falls under.

So far, what I see is that the two water systems need to be bonded to each other with a minimum of 8 AWG, and that is not the case.
 
250.104 is for the interior piping. It does not apply to the well.

250.52 would apply IF the first sentence of 250.52(A)(1) was met.

I am talking about interior piping not being bonded. The well, pump and tank, along with all the related pipe are inside the house, in the basement and exposed. The only part not inside the house is a single faucet to serve the back yard and that comes out of the wall, not the ground.

I am NOT trying to figure out why the well wasn't used as an electrode. What I am trying to understand is why the two systems in the same structure are not bonded together with properly sized wire and connectors and why the existing conductor was required to be removed.
 
I am talking about interior piping not being bonded. The well, pump and tank, along with all the related pipe are inside the house, in the basement and exposed.

I am NOT trying to figure out why the well wasn't used as an electrode. What I am trying to understand is why the two systems in the same structure are not bonded together with properly sized wire and connectors and why the existing conductor was required to be removed.

Then you are most definitely correct.
 
Then you are most definitely correct.

I wasn't even there for the inspection or the work. I work for this EC from time to time doing troubleshooting and I was there for a breaker tripping on the furnace circuit.

But I just can't be near electrical stuff without looking closely at it and I noticed the issue while I was snooping around. The EC is baffled, too, and just said he was only doing what Don the Inspector asked him to. I am going to suggest to the EC that he bond the two systems, which is easy since they come within inches of each other and let me take it up with the inspector, a friend of many years.

It may be just a mis-communication. Maybe Don only asked that the city pipes be used as the electrode and the EC mis-understood what he was asking, but he said that he passed the inspection, so I assume Don knows that the systems aren't bonded properly. Maybe my assumption is incorrect.
 
Update Please

Update Please

I'm new to this forum and this post left me hanging. Unless I missed something, I don't see where this question was taken back to the inspector. Just very curious as to what he said.
 
I'm new to this forum and this post left me hanging. Unless I missed something, I don't see where this question was taken back to the inspector. Just very curious as to what he said.

Sorry, I haven't caught up with him yet. He is working for the city and they had to lay off the field inspector so my friend the chief inspector has to do all the work and he just finished teaching code upgrade class.

Needless to say, he is a busy guy.
 
I agree that the well piping should be bonded to the city-supplied piping.

Tell the inspector to think of it as a very thick ground rod.
 
250.52(a)(7)

250.52(a)(7)

Doesn't 250.52(A)(7) [2005] require this well casing to be connected to the grounding electrode system?

[I believe the OP indicated the well casing is metal, in the ground, in the basement of the house, and no longer connected to the interior metal water piping system ... and per the instructions from the inspector, no longer connected to any electrode system].
 
That happens a lot around here. There are hundreds of one-post members.

Are you referring to me? I have over 1,800 posts.

The fact is that I haven't been able to get in touch with Don, the inspector. He is very busy and since this is not directly related to a job I personally did, I don't want to take up his time at work.

I have more than just this question for him. We discuss code issues off the clock from time to time. I am waiting for an answer to an e-mail I sent him about something I noticed on a house that burned down on the same road I live on. (That made four houses in 6 months on the same road within a few miles of each other) If he is too busy to answer, I don't like to bug him.

Don is the chief inspector for Muskegon and was a great help to me when I was coming up through the apprenticeship. The least I owe him is a little respect and adequate time to do his day job.

Sorry if you think this is a hit and run, but that's not the case.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't 250.52(A)(7) [2005] require this well casing to be connected to the grounding electrode system?

[I believe the OP indicated the well casing is metal, in the ground, in the basement of the house, and no longer connected to the interior metal water piping system ... and per the instructions from the inspector, no longer connected to any electrode system].

That is correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top