ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

[ryan_618]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Originally posted by charlie:
I think the solution is to change the definition of "structure". Now, if someone will pick up the gauntlet and make a proposal to the 2008 NEC.

I want to...I just can't think of how to fix this issue.

 

[hurk27]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Two code sections come to mind when I think about what should be called a structure:

225.31 Disconnecting Means.
Means shall be provided for disconnecting all ungrounded conductors that supply or pass through the building or structure.

Key words in this one is: "Supply, or pass through".

230.70 General.
Means shall be provided to disconnect all conductors in a building or other structure from the service-entrance conductors.

Again the key word is "IN"

A pole that only holds a meter does not use the electricity, it doesn't pass through it, so it should not require a disconnect or grounding electrode?
A post that holds a small service panel or switch's ditto the above.

Added:
For a circuit to be a supply it must have a load on that pole to be a structure.

[ May 25, 2005, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]

 

[ryan_618]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

I disagree.
For a pole to contain on outlet, it must have a load. For a pole to be supplied by a circuit, it must simply contain electrical equipment (other than fittings, etc.)

 

[George Stolz]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Originally posted by ryan_618:

Originally posted by charlie:
I think the solution is to change the definition of "structure". Now, if someone will pick up the gauntlet and make a proposal to the 2008 NEC.

I want to...I just can't think of how to fix this issue.

Ditto. I tried to re-write "structure" when Bob Badger was putting up his 4-circuit pole. But it's touchy. The more I studied on it, the more I tended to concur with the current NEC stance on it. A pole should be supplied by only one circuit.

Under what circumstance would this be too cumbersome to comply with? Or, under what circumstance would compliance with the current code be unsafe? If you're looking to kill a pole in a hurry, then restricting it to one handle is a good idea.

I thought about taking the temporary angle at it, but that was equally troublesome to write.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Originally posted by hurk27:
Two code sections come to mind when I think about what should be called a structure:

225.31 & 230.70

Again the key word is "IN"

If we tried to tackle this on a case by case basis, what if the word "in" were replaced by "supported by" or something similar?

 

[iwire]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Originally posted by georgestolz:
I tried to re-write "structure" when Bob Badger was putting up his 4-circuit pole. But it's touchy. The more I studied on it, the more I tended to concur with the current NEC stance on it. A pole should be supplied by only one circuit.

I do not see the problem with more than one circuit.



Anyone have some better ideas for outlets and covers?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Originally posted by iwire:
Would it be safer if I installed 5 separate posts side by side with only one circuit each?

I forget--this was for a fair or something, right? Is it temporary?

Intermatic Multimac Double-gang in use covers are what I use, I bet you could find some with a hole for a 30A single receptacle.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

What I getting at is, what parameters define a situation where it makes a lot more sense to do it like you did it, as opposed to installing a panel.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Originally posted by iwire:
Would it be safer if I installed 5 separate posts side by side with only one circuit each?

Good morning Bob. I agree with what you are saying, but is this installation safer because it has a grounding electrode system?

 

[hurk27]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Hey Bob someone forgot to tighten the top clamp.

For a pole to contain on outlet, it must have a load. For a pole to be supplied by a circuit, it must simply contain electrical equipment

Ok how about for the definition of a structure that a structure That which is built or constructed that will have electrical equipment that will utilize electrical current mounted upon it?

 

[infinity]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Hey Bob someone forgot to tighten the top clamp.

Either that or it's a different size than the bottom one.

 

[john m. caloggero]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

The inspector is correct in requiring the equipment grounding terminal bar to be grounded to a ground rod at the sub-panel mounted on a 6x6 post. The grounded conductor (neutral) must not be bonded to the enclosure or equipment grounding bar.

 

[George Stolz]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Originally posted by hurk27:
Ok how about for the definition of a structure that a structure That which is built or constructed that will have electrical equipment that will utilize electrical current mounted upon it?

Huh?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

For a chuckle, here's what I had jotted down.

So when does it make more sense to allow more than one circuit to feed a pole?

 

[hurk27]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

The inspector is correct in requiring the equipment grounding terminal bar to be grounded to a ground rod at the sub-panel mounted on a 6x6 post.

This is a good example.
Why are we so bent on wanting to protect a 6"x6" wooden pole from a lightning strike? If it is protecting it from voltages of higher source's wouldn't the EGC provide for that? It sure has a lower impedance than any ground rod would ever provide? I don't see the logic of this requirement?
Yes I agree the code requires it but why?

Lightning will strike a structure with one circuit ran to it just as many times as it will strike that same structure with 10 circuits? The only difference is a building can have people in it a pole will not!

A single circuit makes it safer?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Here's another thought: A ground rod has a sphere of influence of about a 6' radius, right?

So if I have an extension cord plugged into a receptacle connected to that ground rod, is the end of that extension cord getting any benefit from that ground rod in a line surge/higher voltage line contact situation?



[ May 27, 2005, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

 

[hurk27]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

I would doubt it as the high voltage current would be shunted mostly by the EGC ran with the supply or feeders.

What if you ran a extention cord from the house? the same would still apply, wouldn't it?

 

[George Stolz]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

Originally posted by hurk27:
I would doubt it as the high voltage current would be shunted mostly by the EGC ran with the supply or feeders.

I'm thinking of a temp power pole. There wouldn't be an EGC supplying that, it's hooked right to the transformer.

For the house analogy, I would think it would happen there too?

 

[hurk27]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

When we are talking about a HV surge we must be talking that the neutral to the house has been severed and has come in contact with a primary line right? A primary short to secondary should be shunted at the pole. so if you loose the neutral to the house it makes no difference if one circuit or 10 has been ran, the same potential will be the same for both. If you run a extension cord from the house or the post it is still the same. The current still has to get past the grounding electrodes at the house before it even reaches the post. I just don't see where one circuit over multiple circuits make any difference?

 

[hurk27]

Re: ground rod for remote panel at swimming pool

A temporary power pole is a service it should be required to have a grounding electrode system. But if the service at the house already has one adding another rod in the ground will do very little to prevent a shock hazard if you lost the neutral to the house and it hit a primary. Follow the current path.