Inspector questions swimming pool panel

[smallfish]

When inspecting a residential swimming pool installation, I noticed that the existing panel which supplied swimming pool equipment branch circuits and was located in the garage which was separate from the house, did not have a grounding electrode conductor nor a grounding electrode. The feeder was four wire with an equipment grounding conductor kept separate from the grounded conductor in the garage panel.
Must I require that this panel have a grounding electrode system?
Thanks

 

[Little Bill]

When inspecting a residential swimming pool installation, I noticed that the existing panel which supplied swimming pool equipment branch circuits and was located in the garage which was separate from the house, did not have a grounding electrode conductor nor a grounding electrode. The feeder was four wire with an equipment grounding conductor kept separate from the grounded conductor in the garage panel.
Must I require that this panel have a grounding electrode system?
Thanks

I believe if the feeder/panel install was before the 2008 code (and depending on the code being used in your area) it was legal according to 252.32 exception. That is if your install fits this description.

 

[augie47]

I'm afraid I take exception to Post #2.
Prior to '08, there was an exception that, in certain instances, did not require an Equipment Grounding Conductor but a grounding electrode system was still required when a panel was supplied. (see 250.32 in '05 for instance)
From what you say, the original install was not Code compliant and i would think you would need to see that a grounding electrode is installed, indeed 680.25(B)(2) states that the panelbiard meet the requirements of 250.32(B)(1)

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I agree with gus that a GEC is required.

 

[220/221]

Must I require that this panel have a grounding electrode system?
Thanks

Since the garage is certainly a structure, it needs a GEC.

 

[Little Bill]

I'm afraid I take exception to Post #2.
Prior to '08, there was an exception that, in certain instances, did not require an Equipment Grounding Conductor but a grounding electrode system was still required when a panel was supplied. (see 250.32 in '05 for instance)
From what you say, the original install was not Code compliant and i would think you would need to see that a grounding electrode is installed, indeed 680.25(B)(2) states that the panelbiard meet the requirements of 250.32(B)(1)

Augie, The 2005 is what I am looking at and based my post on that. I don't see where it says "if a panel was supplied." the exception in 250.32(A) says:
"A grounding electrode shall not be required where only a single branch circuit supplies the building or structure and the branch circuit includes an equipment grounding conductor for grounding the conductive non-current carrying parts of equipment. For the purpose of this section, a multiwire branch circuit shall be considered as a single branch circuit."
If the garage was fed from a 2-pole breaker in the main panel and included an EGC as the OP stated, would that not be a MWBC?
This is not meant as argumentative, but I'm just looking for clarification.

 

[kwired]

Augie, The 2005 is what I am looking at and based my post on that. I don't see where it says "if a panel was supplied." the exception in 250.32(A) says:
"A grounding electrode shall not be required where only a single branch circuit supplies the building or structure and the branch circuit includes an equipment grounding conductor for grounding the conductive non-current carrying parts of equipment. For the purpose of this section, a multiwire branch circuit shall be considered as a single branch circuit."
If the garage was fed from a 2-pole breaker in the main panel and included an EGC as the OP stated, would that not be a MWBC?
This is not meant as argumentative, but I'm just looking for clarification.

If it supplies a panel and multiple circuits - especially of lower ampacity than the supply circuit it is not a MWBC it is a feeder.

If it supplies the separate building or structure and only feeds through a disconnect - no reduction in overcurrent protection and then on to the load(s) then it is a MWBC.

 

[Little Bill]

If it supplies a panel and multiple circuits - especially of lower ampacity than the supply circuit it is not a MWBC it is a feeder.

If it supplies the separate building or structure and only feeds through a disconnect - no reduction in overcurrent protection and then on to the load(s) then it is a MWBC.

I will concede to experience and wisdom, but I don't see this wording/explanation in the 2005 code book. But that's not the first thing that has been clear as mud to me!:happysad:

 

[hurk27]

I will concede to experience and wisdom, but I don't see this wording/explanation in the 2005 code book. But that's not the first thing that has been clear as mud to me!:happysad:

If a garage has a panel with branch circuit breakers then the conductors are feeders as was said, look at the definition of a feeder:

Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment, the source of a separately derived system, or other power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device.

This question is moot anyways since the OP was asking about the grounding electrode which 250.32(B)(2) has nothing to do with.

 

[Little Bill]

If a garage has a panel with branch circuit breakers then the conductors are feeders as was said, look at the definition of a feeder:


This question is moot anyways since the OP was asking about the grounding electrode which 250.32(B)(2) has nothing to do with.

My question/comment was based on 250.32(A) exception. The OP stated it had a EGC but no GEC or electrode.

 

[eprice]

I will concede to experience and wisdom, but I don't see this wording/explanation in the 2005 code book. But that's not the first thing that has been clear as mud to me!:happysad:

Look at the definitions of "Branch Circuit" and "Feeder". If the conductors in question supply a panel, then they are a feeder, not a branch circuit. A MWBC is a special case of a branch circuit. A feeder cannot be a MWBC.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

My question/comment was based on 250.32(A) exception. The OP stated it had a EGC but no GEC or electrode.

The Op also mentions a panel. If there is a panel then it cannot meet the exception for a MWBC. If it doesn't meet the exception then a rod is needed regardless if there is an egc or not run with the feeder.

 

[Little Bill]

The Op also mentions a panel. If there is a panel then it cannot meet the exception for a MWBC. If it doesn't meet the exception then a rod is needed regardless if there is an egc or not run with the feeder.

I think I got it. I could have sworn that I had read where others had posted in response to someone wanting to wire a shed/garage (detatched) and running
multiple cables and telling them, (which I know,) that it is illegal. They were instead instructed to run MWBC to a panel/disconnect and wire from that. Don't recall anything said about a GEC system

I mentioned the OP having a EGC run with his circuit in response to Hurk because he mentioned 250.32(B)(2), which I hadn't mentioned.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I think I got it. I could have sworn that I had read where others had posted in response to someone wanting to wire a shed/garage (detatched) and running
multiple cables and telling them, (which I know,) that it is illegal. They were instead instructed to run MWBC to a panel/disconnect and wire from that. Don't recall anything said about a GEC system

I mentioned the OP having a EGC run with his circuit in response to Hurk because he mentioned 250.32(B)(2), which I hadn't mentioned.

There is no such thing as a MWBC to a panel.... That would be a feeder. A branch circuit is the conductors from the last OCPD protecting the circuit and the devices.

 

[hurk27]

I believe if the feeder/panel install was before the 2008 code (and depending on the code being used in your area) it was legal according to 252.32 exception. That is if your install fits this description.

I mentioned the OP having a EGC run with his circuit in response to Hurk because he mentioned 250.32(B)(2), which I hadn't mentioned.

I got mixed up because you mention in post 2 that it changed in 2008, but 250(B)(2) was the only thing that had changed which was changed to an exception in 2008 and added the words to only allow it as an existing installation, this had me thinking your were talking about the 250.32(B)(2) change, the exception to 250.32(A) was never changed.

 

[Little Bill]

There is no such thing as a MWBC to a panel.... That would be a feeder. A branch circuit is the conductors from the last OCPD protecting the circuit and the devices.

Well, I just want you to know that I've secretly been testing everyone on this and you all passed!:lol:

I got mixed up because you mention in post 2 that it changed in 2008, but 250(B)(2) was the only thing that had changed which was changed to an exception in 2008 and added the words to only allow it as an existing installation, this had me thinking your were talking about the 250.32(B)(2) change, the exception to 250.32(A) was never changed.

We're all good here now!:thumbsup: