UG Service under swimming pool?

[inspector 102]

A homeowner argued with me about placing an aboveground 24' swimming pool over the underground service conductors through her back yard. She argued that the service conductors were not the same as wiring as prohibited by 680.10. I think she was coached before I got there. Code reference added for clarity. What is the opinion of this group on that agruement. Service conductors are 36" deep+. The conductors basically split the property in half and she argues there is no place else to set the pool. When I suggested having the utility move them, you can only image the language that was used. Any thoughts? Thanks

 

[dnem]

I think she was coached before I got there.

The person coaching her is gambling with the lives of her kids. . What part of "Underground wiring shall not be permitted under the pool" is being disputed ?

Say to her: "If at any time a crack develops in the insulation at any point in just one of the 2 ungrounded [just say hot so she knows what you're talking about] service conductors, when the electricity has the opportunity to flow thru the ground, do you know what will happen to your kids while they are swimming ?"

If you still can't get her to care about the swimmers, get out of there. . You don't need the liability. . Even a small shock has a large chance of resulting in a drowning. . Don't get involved in that installation. . It's not worth the profit. . Too much liability exposure, too hard to sleep at night if somebody dies later on.

 

[Buck Parrish]

Ditto's that!

 

[M. D.]

If there are , notice the word if,. space limitations , there is relief. I'm not sure who needs to be convinced of the limitation ,..was a building permit not required??

 

[inspector 102]

I discussed this with the local utility coordinator and he suggested removing the meter from the house and placingit on a pedastal at the property line. He said after that he does not care what happens. I told him the wiring would still be under the pool, maintaining the problem. He said the homeowner can move the feeder where ever they want. I agreed and moved on. I understand the exception to encase the conductors in conduit, but since this is utility owned, that is not gonna fly very far. I told the lady she should be glad the pool was given to her and she has not lost any real money to this point. She also said she might go for variance to locate the pool in the front yard to avoid all utilities. Good luck on that one. Thanks again for the input.

 

[dnem]

I discussed this with the local utility coordinator and he suggested removing the meter from the house and placingit on a pedastal at the property line. He said after that he does not care what happens. I told him the wiring would still be under the pool, maintaining the problem. He said the homeowner can move the feeder where ever they want. I agreed and moved on. I understand the exception to encase the conductors in conduit, but since this is utility owned, that is not gonna fly very far. I told the lady she should be glad the pool was given to her and she has not lost any real money to this point. She also said she might go for variance to locate the pool in the front yard to avoid all utilities. Good luck on that one. Thanks again for the input.

"I understand the exception to encase the conductors in conduit ....."
I don't

Concrete encasement allows less cover depth but it doesn't change "Underground wiring shall not be permitted under the pool ....." [680.10]

You can sometimes get closer than 6 feet [but still not under] with "wiring necessary to supply pool equipment". . You don't supply pool equipment with service entrance conductors and you don't supply it with a whole house feeder. . Meter on a pedestal changes nothing. . A main disconnect with OCPD would make the danger less but it would still not be the wiring supplying the pool equipment.

It's time to walk away. . This homeowner is looking to get something for nothing but will scream victim to the prosecutor and newspapers if anybody gets hurt.

 

[inspector 102]

dnem - It sounds like you might have dealt with something like this before? Thanks for the comments and yes I have basically walked away from this one. I understand that 680.10 does not allow any wiring under the pool as indicated in the first sentence. It could still be argued that the reduction allowed does not service entrance conductors since the service is required to operate the pool equipment. I realize that is really stretching it out there, but haven't we all dealt with that before. People always want to stretch the provisions when it benifits them.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

It could still be argued that the reduction allowed does not service entrance conductors since the service is required to operate the pool equipment. I realize that is really stretching it out there,

You are right. That is really stretching it--- Stretching it way out there.

 

[nakulak]

as firemarshalls are usually quick to point out, its good to remember that the code is a minimum code. there are provisions that could have way, way tighter constraints in order to be even safer. the provisions in the code are there to protect lives. a provision as specific as the ones contained in article 680 are obviously there to protect lives, and it is insane for anyone to consider subverting ("stretching") them. Actually, insane isn't the correct word - negligent and reckless come to mind also.

 

[M. D.]

Wow, pretty strong opinions,.. they seem to differ from those on the CMP.

17-75 Log #580 NEC-P17

Final Action: Reject
(680.10)
__________________________________________________ __________

Submitter:
Michael Tooke, Temecula, CA

Recommendation:

This article as currently written:

Underground wiring shall not be permitted under the pool or within the area

extending 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally from the inside wall of the pool unless this​

wiring is necessary to supply the pool equipment permitted by this article.​

Where space limitations prevent wiring from being routed a distance 1.5 m (5

ft) or more from the pool, such wiring shall be permitted where installed in

rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, or a nonmetallic raceway
system. All metal conduit shall be corrosion resistant and suitable for the
location. The minimum burial depth shall be as given in Table 680.10.
This article with the revision:
Underground wiring shall not be permitted under the pool or within the area
extending 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally from the inside wall of the pool unless this
wiring is necessary to supply the pool equipment permitted by this article.
Where space limitations prevent wiring that is necessary to supply the pool
equipment from being routed a distance 1.5 m (5 ft) or more from the pool,
such wiring shall be permitted where installed in rigid metal conduit,
intermediate metal conduit, or a nonmetallic raceway system. All metal conduit
shall be corrosion resistant and suitable for the location. The minimum burial
depth shall be as given in Table 680.10.​

Substantiation:


The first sentence in this article states that NO underground

wiring is permitted within 1.5 m (5 ft) from the inside wall of the pool unless it
is necessary to supply pool equipment. The next sentence needs clarification, as
it is being interpreted that ANY underground wiring (even if it is not necessary
to supply the pool equipment) is permitted within the 1.5 m (5 ft) area so long
as it is installed in an approved raceway at the depths listed in the chart. By
adding the phrase that is necessary to supply the pool equipment to this second
sentence (where I indicated above), it clarifies the intent of the article.​

Panel Meeting Action: Reject​

Panel Statement: The intent of the Code is to permit, when space is limited,​

conduits from other systems to be buried within 5 ft of the pool in accordance

​

with 680.10 and Table 680.10.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11

Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11

And this one note the example the submitter uses,. I'm not sure there is much stretching going on.

Submitter:

L. Keith Lofland, International Association of Electrical Inspectors​

Recommendation: ​

Revise text to read as follows:​

680.10 Underground Wiring Location.​

Underground wiring shall not be permitted under the pool or within the area

extending 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally from the inside wall of the pool unless this

wiring is necessary to supply pool equipment permitted by this article. Where
space limitations prevent wiring from being routed a distance 1.5 m (5 ft) or
more from the pool, such wiring shall be permitted where installed in complete
raceway systems of rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, or a
nonmetallic raceway system. All metal conduit shall be corrosion resistant and
suitable for the location. The minimum burial depth shall be as given in Table
680.10.​

​

Substantiation:

​

​

The main requirements of 680.10 requires underground​

wiring systems to be located a minimum of 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally from the​

inside wall of a pool. Where space limitations prevent this, an allowance inside

the restricted 1.5 m (5 ft) distance is permitted when employing specified

raceway systems. Clarification is needed as to whether these specified raceway
systems are required to be complete raceway systems (transformer pad to
meterbase at building as an example) or does the underground wiring system
simply have to be “sleeved” where the underground wiring system is located
within the restricted 1.5 m (5 ft) area of the pool.​

​

Panel Meeting Action: Accept

Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: ​

​

​

Affirmative: 11​

__________________________________________________​

 

[dnem]

Wow, pretty strong opinions,.. they seem to differ from those on the CMP.

#1 This changes nothing with this install because it is under the pool, not within 5'

#2 Forget for moment that there's an argument about the service conductors
being "necessary to supply the pool equipment" and just look at the words of the CMP.

Are these 2 statements in conflict ?

statement #1
680.10
"..... unless this wiring is necessary to supply the pool equipment permitted by this article."

statement #2
CMP Panel Statement on proposal that you posted above:
The intent of the Code is to permit, when space is limited, conduits from other systems to be buried within 5 ft of the pool in accordance with 680.10 and Table 680.10.

I see a conflict and when there's a conflict between NEC and Handbook or NEC and CMP statement or NEC and UL Whitebook, the NEC wins. . I don't care that they say "from other systems" unless they change the code to eliminate the conflict with that statement.

 

[M. D.]

You know I used to think I knew what over a tub meant ,... but many folks did not so now they use the words directly over the tub and ,..you know what,??... some still don't know what it means... go figure

So what does under the pool mean do they mean directly under?? Or just lower in the earth ,..and how would you wire a pool on the top floor of a hotel ??? would you need a clear shot of the pool footprint straight away to China?? or just to the middle of the earth??

I don't really see the big issue with it myself ..

 

[dnem]

So what does under the pool mean do they mean directly under?? Or just lower in the earth ,..and how would you wire a pool on the top floor of a hotel ???

That is a very good question !

If it's an Amish Hotel, then there wouldn't be an issue. . Of course the Amish pool wouldn't have a motor, maybe a mule turning a waterwheel but not an electric motor