680.25(B) 2014 NEC

[M. D.]

The red words have been stricken from the code

31. Delete the Exception in 680.25(A)(1).

32. Revise 680.25(B) to read as follows:
(B) Grounding. An equipment grounding conductor shall be installed with the feeder conductors between the grounding
terminal of the pool equipment panelboard and the grounding terminal of the applicable service equipment or source of a
separately derived system. For other than (1) existing feeders covered in 680.25(A), exception, or (2) feeders to separate
buildings that do not utilize an insulated equipment grounding conductor in accordance with 680.25(B)(2), this equipment
grounding conductor shall be insulated.

So, at work yesterday this was the topic of some discussion . The house we were in had a 100 amp service with a meter main mounted on the house , they had to travel about 15 feet in to locate the panel , the feeder was SER which we all know has a bare grounding conductor . Question : Could this panel supply a feeder with a properly insulated ground to a pool equipment panel board or would the SER need to be changed ? I'm thinking the NEC is not a reach back document and that the new feeder to the pool equipment panel would need to have an insulated grounding conductor but that the feeder to the house panel ,already in place can stay. Others were of the opinion it would need to be replaced .. Just looking for other thoughtful opinions . Thanks .

 

[Gregg Harris]

The red words have been stricken from the code

So, at work yesterday this was the topic of some discussion . The house we were in had a 100 amp service with a meter main mounted on the house , they had to travel about 15 feet in to locate the panel , the feeder was SER which we all know has a bare grounding conductor . Question : Could this panel supply a feeder with a properly insulated ground to a pool equipment panel board or would the SER need to be changed ? I'm thinking the NEC is not a reach back document and that the new feeder to the pool equipment panel would need to have an insulated grounding conductor but that the feeder to the house panel ,already in place can stay. Others were of the opinion it would need to be replaced .. Just looking for other thoughtful opinions . Thanks .

Your assumption would be correct

 

[Dennis Alwon]

680.25 states these provisions shall apply to any feeder on the supply side of panelboards supplying branch circuits for pool equipment... IMO the panel in question does not feed the branch circuits to pool equipment but feeds the feeder to the pool equipment. Thus I say no need to upgrade the ser

 

[M. D.]

Thanks but this gives me pause

between the grounding terminal of the pool equipment panelboard and the grounding terminal of the applicable service equipment

Is the main panel being fed by the SER "applicable service equipment" or is that outside at the meter main ? it seems the only relief is for feeders to separate buildings . It seems the want the insulated grounding conductor to be brought back to where the equipment ground is born ,at the grounded neutral in the meter main ?

 

[Smart $]

Thanks but this gives me pause

between the grounding terminal of the pool equipment panelboard and the grounding terminal of the applicable service equipment

Is the main panel being fed by the SER "applicable service equipment" or is that outside at the meter main ? it seems the only relief is for feeders to separate buildings . It seems the want the insulated grounding conductor to be brought back to where the equipment ground is born ,at the grounded neutral in the meter main ?

I had the same pause as you when you first posted. Didn't respond at that time. Figured I'd let other voice their opinion first, as I'm not experienced in pool installations.

IMO, the change results in little reduction or enhanced mitigation of voltage gradients on the grounding system. The main concern would be voltage gradients on exposed non-current-carrying metal. Even with an insulated EGC between panel and service equipment, the voltage gradient will not be any less on such exposed metal.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Well I watched mike holt live stream this afternoon. Saw George and Ryan on the panel - our famous mods---LOL... Anyway the issue that M.D. addressed in this thread was answer by the group. It was quite clear to Mike that the 2014 NEC has taken away the use of an existing sub panel that did not have an insulated equipment grounding conductor. He was not sure that was the intent however that was how it read to him. He also thought it was absolutely ridiculous.

Also, I believe Ryan brought up the fact that the errata was enforceable but Mike disagreed. For instance, if Massachusetts accepted the NEC before the erratas were written then in fact the erratas would not be enforceable unless the state accepted them.