Pool circuit

[WSB123]

I have installed a #2/2/2/4 SER Cable from my main panel in a residence to supply a subpanel (mounted on the exterior wall of the house) that will feed branch circuits for a swimming pool. The inspector will not allow it and said I would have to install the circuit in conduit or run a separate insulated ground with the SER. I know that the ground should be insulated from the subpanel, but cannot find where an insulated ground from the main to the subpanel is required.

 

[augie47]

See 680.25, if it's a new feeder he is correct
(TN has an exception)

 

[raider1]

Also I would like to add that 300.3(B) would not allow you to run a separate insulated EGC next to the SER cable.

Chris

 

[wwhitney]

Also I would like to add that 300.3(B) would not allow you to run a separate insulated EGC next to the SER cable.

Why wouldn't this be allowed under 300.3(B)(3)?

Thanks, Wayne

 

[raider1]

Why wouldn't this be allowed under 300.3(B)(3)?

Thanks, Wayne

Because 300.3(B)(2) addresses grounding and bonding conductors and none of the referenced sections permit an EGC to be run separate in the OPers situation.

Chris

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Based on 680.25 (A) Seu is not an approved wiring method

680.25 Feeders.
These provisions shall apply to any feeder on the supply side of panelboards supplying branch circuits for pool equipment covered in Part II of this article and on the load side of the service equipment or the source of a separately derived system.
(A) Wiring Methods. Feeders shall be installed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, liquidtight flexible nonmetallic conduit, rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit, or reinforced thermosetting resin conduit. Electrical metallic tubing shall be permitted where installed on or within a building, and electrical nonmetallic tubing shall be permitted where installed within a building. Aluminum conduits shall not be permitted in the pool area where subject to corrosion.

 

[wwhitney]

Because 300.3(B)(2) addresses grounding and bonding conductors and none of the referenced sections permit an EGC to be run separate in the OPers situation.

OK, so 300.3(B)(2) prohibits using an individual conductor, but you could use a conductor in a second cable under 300.3(B)(3). E.g. a single conductor cable with a green conductor (I don't know if such a thing is readily available). Is that right?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[raider1]

OK, so 300.3(B)(2) prohibits using an individual conductor, but you could use a conductor in a second cable under 300.3(B)(3). E.g. a single conductor cable with a green conductor (I don't know if such a thing is readily available). Is that right?

Cheers, Wayne

If you could find a non-metallic cable with an insulated copper EGC then you may be able to use 300.3(B)(3) but that does not seem very likely.

Chris

 

[wwhitney]

If you could find a non-metallic cable with an insulated copper EGC then you may be able to use 300.3(B)(3) but that does not seem very likely.

OK, thanks. Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

If you could find a non-metallic cable with an insulated copper EGC then you may be able to use 300.3(B)(3) but that does not seem very likely.

So you could instead use some #4 NM and reidentify one of the insulated conductors as green, as per 250.119(A)? Admittedly this is outside the realm of practical, I'm just checking my code understanding.

Thanks, Wayne

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If you could find a non-metallic cable with an insulated copper EGC then you may be able to use 300.3(B)(3) but that does not seem very likely.

Chris

Chris Are you saying that nm cable would be allowed in this situation with an insulated ground? 680.25(A) doesn't appear to allow this.

 

[wwhitney]

Chris Are you saying that nm cable would be allowed in this situation with an insulated ground? 680.25(A) doesn't appear to allow this.

I assumed that your post had settled the OP's question and was interested in the question of whether it would otherwise be a compliant installation.

Cheers, Wayne