Cavie
Senior Member
- Location
- SW Florida
romeo This inspector agrees[/quote said:
Pool Panel Supply 680.25 - 2005
- Thread starter Pierre C Belarge
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Massachusetts
Cavie said:
Until a contractor gets smart and hires a lawyer.
Cavie
Senior Member
- Location
- SW Florida
iwire said:Until a contractor gets smart and hires a lawyer.
It all comes down to AHJ interpitation. The code is open to interpitation. If the code making panel would jump in and state the intent of the wording of the code it would be easy to make a decision. (Better yet they should use common sence english). But since nobody will take on that responcibilty, it is left up to the AHJ. The AHJ breaks down the wording of a perticular sentance and uses his knowledge of the English language and come up with his interpitation. In this case, the sentance broken down in short form reads, "Feeders with EGC to Service equipment". That's how my boss calls it and I also read it that way.
chris kennedy
Senior Member
- Location
- Miami Fla.
- Occupation
- 60 yr old tool twisting electrician
Then it would be in the Handbook wouldn't it.Cavie said:
Energize
Senior Member
- Location
- Milky Way Galaxy
chris kennedy said:
OUCH !
MEDIC!!!!!!!
chris kennedy
Senior Member
- Location
- Miami Fla.
- Occupation
- 60 yr old tool twisting electrician
I'm very sorry. I did not intend that to sound like I was taking a shot at Cavie. I have a great deal of respect for all here.Energize said:OUCH !
MEDIC!!!!!!!
From now on my post will be followed by a blue box expressing the INTENT of my post.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Cavie said:
Actually no.
There are a few areas of the NEC left expressly for the the interruption of the local AHJ, The distance service conductors can run inside for instance.
But an AHJ can not interpret any code section anyway they choose.
If push comes to shove the courts will decide based on the words contained in the code section.
Cavie I have to be honest here, I think we have been talking about a very clear section of code here and I can't see how the dept you work for has misunderstood it.
It's easy, 'an insulated EGC all the way back to the service or SDS no matter how many stops along the way.
Even Mikes email stated he could not understand the confusion.
In this case, the sentance broken down in short form reads, "Feeders withEGC to Service equipment".That's how my boss calls it and I also read it that way.
Yes feeders as in as many feeders as it is.
I think your boss is putting his area at risk of suit.
But hey, it don't effect me, I don't wire pools.
M. D.
Senior Member
So, cavie dwells in darkness still:smile:
So an electrician cannot employ 250.32(B)(2)?? if a pool panel is to be subfed from the seperate structure? There are no words currently that prohibt this .
From a May 2001 R.O.C.
So an electrician cannot employ 250.32(B)(2)?? if a pool panel is to be subfed from the seperate structure? There are no words currently that prohibt this .
From a May 2001 R.O.C.
Quote:
This comment also changes 680.25(B) to remove a conflict
between its language and 680.25(A) Exception and 680.25(B)(2),
neither of which require insulated equipment grounding
conductors in all instances. The final change in 680.25(B)(2)
addresses the fact that feeders are far from the only required
elements of compliance with 250.32 and the wording must be
broadened to clarify that all elements of 250.32 must be met in
order for this allowance to be safe. In addition, separate buildings
may themselves contain feeders running from their main
distribution to subpanels supplying swimming pool equipment.
This comment clarifies that the allowance is only for the main
supply feeder to the separate building, and not a subfeeder within
the building which should follow the same rules as for a feeder in
the main building. Only on the main supply feeder, which will have
a grounding electrode connected at the load end in the separate
building, is there equivalent safety to that afforded at the service
entrance.
This comment also changes 680.25(B) to remove a conflict
between its language and 680.25(A) Exception and 680.25(B)(2),
neither of which require insulated equipment grounding
conductors in all instances. The final change in 680.25(B)(2)
addresses the fact that feeders are far from the only required
elements of compliance with 250.32 and the wording must be
broadened to clarify that all elements of 250.32 must be met in
order for this allowance to be safe. In addition, separate buildings
may themselves contain feeders running from their main
distribution to subpanels supplying swimming pool equipment.
This comment clarifies that the allowance is only for the main
supply feeder to the separate building, and not a subfeeder within
the building which should follow the same rules as for a feeder in
the main building. Only on the main supply feeder, which will have
a grounding electrode connected at the load end in the separate
building, is there equivalent safety to that afforded at the service
entrance.
Davis Electrical
Member
Sorry, Another Rehash BUT
Sorry, Another Rehash BUT
Clearly, it would appear that it was the intent of article 680.25 in requiring a four wire installation to ensure that an insulated grounding conductor be provided, continuous, from the pool light to the service panel since it quite obviously conflicts with past theory that suggested that a three wire installation to a non service panel was indeed a safer installation.
First, I am not sure about the word "continuous." Although I have always defined this as "unbroken," or "without splice" I am uncertain that the code actually provides a definition. Since "continuous" as supplied from the light manufacturer is a relative impossibility (and I have tried replacing it) I would therefore be inclined to reinterpret or revise my definition of continuous in this case.
Secondly, I was hoping someone more technically aware might expound on the actual theory behind such a requirement as this continuous grounding conductor from light to service panel. Why are we doing this? Why not simply terminate it in the non service panel?
Third, I am uncertain that is appropriate to suggest that there is significant difference as regards safety of installation between that of a building, and that of a structure. I therefore view this particular wording, with interpretive focus on the one word "building" as something likely, purely incidental to the cause in a) continuance, so as not to appear in conflict, with their initial 3 wire requirement and b) advancing their cause for a continuous pool ground to the service supply.
However, it is also quite possible that there is significant theory behind the four wire requirement to a pool structure that I simply do not understand, or have never been educated in. Can someone please expound on this a little as well?
By the way, my intent is not to manipulate the code or challenge those more enlightened. It is simply to more fully understand. So, uhh, thank you very much for your time and consideration (and please don't beat me up too much).
Sorry, Another Rehash BUT
Clearly, it would appear that it was the intent of article 680.25 in requiring a four wire installation to ensure that an insulated grounding conductor be provided, continuous, from the pool light to the service panel since it quite obviously conflicts with past theory that suggested that a three wire installation to a non service panel was indeed a safer installation.
First, I am not sure about the word "continuous." Although I have always defined this as "unbroken," or "without splice" I am uncertain that the code actually provides a definition. Since "continuous" as supplied from the light manufacturer is a relative impossibility (and I have tried replacing it) I would therefore be inclined to reinterpret or revise my definition of continuous in this case.
Secondly, I was hoping someone more technically aware might expound on the actual theory behind such a requirement as this continuous grounding conductor from light to service panel. Why are we doing this? Why not simply terminate it in the non service panel?
Third, I am uncertain that is appropriate to suggest that there is significant difference as regards safety of installation between that of a building, and that of a structure. I therefore view this particular wording, with interpretive focus on the one word "building" as something likely, purely incidental to the cause in a) continuance, so as not to appear in conflict, with their initial 3 wire requirement and b) advancing their cause for a continuous pool ground to the service supply.
However, it is also quite possible that there is significant theory behind the four wire requirement to a pool structure that I simply do not understand, or have never been educated in. Can someone please expound on this a little as well?
By the way, my intent is not to manipulate the code or challenge those more enlightened. It is simply to more fully understand. So, uhh, thank you very much for your time and consideration (and please don't beat me up too much).
- Status