ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat Box
Recent Posts
Where is Everyone?
by gfretwell - 04/09/21 01:08 AM
HI gang, long time since I was here...
by gfretwell - 04/09/21 01:02 AM
Lock-down Thread
by gfretwell - 04/06/21 09:30 PM
New in the Gallery:
Facebook follies, bad wiring
FPE in Germany pt.2
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 5 guests, and 22 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
680.25 #210676 07/20/13 12:48 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 27
S
Stu T Offline OP
Member
I was recently hired to make corrections to a job originally done by the home owner. The home owner has moved away and is trying to get a final inspection so that he can sell the house. I called the inspector and asked him what violations needed to be corrected. His reply blew me away because I have never herd an interpretation of the code like this one.

Here's the layout, picture this:
400 Amp, underground service, to a 320 Amp, outdoor meter pan, the meter pan has no main breakers, it's lugs out only. There are two distributions panels each one having it's own 200 Amp main circuit breaker. The wiring method between the meter pan and the two main-distribution panels is #4/0Alu SEU cable. Each SEU cable is no more then 4 feet. Everything in the panels looks code compliant, including all grounding & bonding.

Now there's the problem, the inspector is stating that because there is a swimming pool on the premises the SEU cable between the meter pan and the main-distribution panel which serves the pool must be replaced with a wiring method specified in 680.25 (A) (we are still on the 2005).
He sites 680.25 as his reason.

I fully understand the restrictions and mandatory wiring methods to be used from a main panel to a sub-panel serving pool loads (feeders & branch circuits). But I do not be-leave it is the intention of 680.25 to apply these restrictions to the wiring methods prior to the main switch. It basically boils down to, do we need to have an insulated equipment grounding conductor starting at the meter or service head.

For clarification I asked the inspector the following question: so if I had a single family house with a 200 Amp overhead service wired with Aluminum SEU cable as the wiring method between the point of attachment and the meter pan, that house could not have a swimming pool, given everything is new and we are not applying any of the exceptions. His reply was "correct".

Since he's citing 680.25:
680.25 Feeders. These provisions shall apply to any feeder on the supply side of the panel-boards supplying branch circuits for pool equipment covered in Part II of this article and on the load side of the service equipment of source of a separately derived system.

He's using the part stating "AND ON THE LOAD SIDE OF THE SERVICE EQUIPMENT". Well I have to admit, it does seem like he might be on to something because the SEU is on the load side of the meter pan, but is the meter pan considered "service equipment". I can't be-leave that this was the intent of 680.25
I would appreciate any comments on this subject.


2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
Re: 680.25 [Re: Stu T] #210680 07/20/13 01:38 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,237
HotLine1 Offline
Member
Stu:
IMHO, the 'load side' of the service equipment is anything past the first means of disconnect.

This is from the '11 NEC Article 100 definitions:
"Service Equipment. The necessary equipment, usually consisting of a circuit breaker(s) or switch(es) and fuse(s) and their accessories, connected to the load end of service conductors to a building or other structure, or an otherwise designated area, and intended to constitute the main control and cutoff of the supply."

Now, what is the actual scope of work that is being inspected? The pool, or the 320 service??

Would you be allowed by your POCO to have a GEC within the 320 meter pan? Here in NJ (PSE&G) that is a no-no. The GEC is at the first means of disconnect (your 200 amp panels) Is the inspector intimating that you need a 'main'?





John
Re: 680.25 [Re: Stu T] #210683 07/20/13 03:39 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,575
G
gfretwell Offline
Member
Exception: An existing feeder between an existing remote panelboard and service equipment shall be permitted to run in flexible metal conduit or an approved cable assembly that includes an equipment grounding conductor within its outer sheath. The equipment grounding conductor shall comply with 250.24(A)(5).


Greg Fretwell
Re: 680.25 [Re: Stu T] #210684 07/20/13 04:20 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,237
HotLine1 Offline
Member
Greg:
The OP stated that the exceptions will not be used.

My question within my comments above is:

What is the inspection for?? Pool, Service?? or ??


John
Re: 680.25 [Re: HotLine1] #210686 07/20/13 07:52 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 27
S
Stu T Offline OP
Member
The pool came 1st, then at some point after the pool was installed, the owner replaced the service. Just so we are clear, this whole thing has to do with the wiring method from the main-less meter pan to the main switch, beyond this is not an issue.


Re: 680.25 [Re: HotLine1] #210687 07/20/13 07:57 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 27
S
Stu T Offline OP
Member
The Inspection is for the Service.

Re: 680.25 [Re: Stu T] #210688 07/20/13 09:12 PM
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 613
S
shortcircuit Offline
Member
Originally Posted by Stu T
I was recently hired to make corrections to a job originally done by the home owner. The home owner has moved away and is trying to get a final inspection so that he can sell the house. I called the inspector and asked him what violations needed to be corrected. His reply blew me away because I have never herd an interpretation of the code like this one.

Here's the layout, picture this:
400 Amp, underground service, to a 320 Amp, outdoor meter pan, the meter pan has no main breakers, it's lugs out only. There are two distributions panels each one having it's own 200 Amp main circuit breaker. The wiring method between the meter pan and the two main-distribution panels is #4/0Alu SEU cable. Each SEU cable is no more then 4 feet. Everything in the panels looks code compliant, including all grounding & bonding.

Now there's the problem, the inspector is stating that because there is a swimming pool on the premises the SEU cable between the meter pan and the main-distribution panel which serves the pool must be replaced with a wiring method specified in 680.25 (A) (we are still on the 2005).
He sites 680.25 as his reason.

I fully understand the restrictions and mandatory wiring methods to be used from a main panel to a sub-panel serving pool loads (feeders & branch circuits). But I do not be-leave it is the intention of 680.25 to apply these restrictions to the wiring methods prior to the main switch. It basically boils down to, do we need to have an insulated equipment grounding conductor starting at the meter or service head.

For clarification I asked the inspector the following question: so if I had a single family house with a 200 Amp overhead service wired with Aluminum SEU cable as the wiring method between the point of attachment and the meter pan, that house could not have a swimming pool, given everything is new and we are not applying any of the exceptions. His reply was "correct".

Since he's citing 680.25:
680.25 Feeders. These provisions shall apply to any feeder on the supply side of the panel-boards supplying branch circuits for pool equipment covered in Part II of this article and on the load side of the service equipment of source of a separately derived system.

He's using the part stating "AND ON THE LOAD SIDE OF THE SERVICE EQUIPMENT". Well I have to admit, it does seem like he might be on to something because the SEU is on the load side of the meter pan, but is the meter pan considered "service equipment". I can't be-leave that this was the intent of 680.25
I would appreciate any comments on this subject.



I disagree with the inspectors interpretation. The line and load conductors of the meter pan are service conductors. This has nothing to do with 680.25 which covers feeders.

Re: 680.25 [Re: Stu T] #210689 07/20/13 09:55 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,575
G
gfretwell Offline
Member
John is right, until you get to the service disconnect, they are service conductors.

Quote
Service Conductors. The conductors from the service point to the service disconnecting means.
article 100

That is why you need that hardware to be marked "suitable for use as service equipment"


Greg Fretwell
Re: 680.25 [Re: Stu T] #210691 07/21/13 02:55 PM
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,237
HotLine1 Offline
Member
OK, I have to ask....what does an existing pool have to do with a service upgrade??

IMHO, It is time to respectfully speak to this inspectors superior! Hopefully, he has one.


John
Re: 680.25 [Re: shortcircuit] #210694 07/22/13 04:33 PM
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 2
W
Wire101 Offline
New Member
New in New Jersey
Like to know how you made out with the pool
Having. kind of same problem
New pool inspector says I can't use. UF
Does not have cover on ground
340.108 the cable shall be permitted to have an insulated or bare grounding conductor
Can't find any thing like it in 680
680.25 (A) (1) feeders does not talk about UF.
Thanks
Wire101

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Featured:

2020 National Electrical Code
2020 National Electrical
Code (NEC)

* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
AllClear
AllClear
Belmond Iowa US
Posts: 44
Joined: August 2005
Show All Member Profiles 
Top Posters(30 Days)
BigB 1
Popular Topics(Views)
277,597 Are you busy
211,258 Re: Forum
198,287 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3