# Single family dwelling pool feeder wiring



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Uf .....?

~cs~


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

680.25(A)(1) has not changed in the 2014 NEC


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

perhaps you should reread the exception in 680.25(A)(1) Exception and look for the word 'insulated' added to the words 'equipment grounding conductor'. You will also see the word 'insulated 'darkened to show the change.

UF does not contain an insulated equipment grounding conductor per it's listing.

From NFPA:
680.25 (A) (1) exception. A feeder between a remote panelboard and the service 
equipment shall be permitted to run in flexible metal conduit or an approved cable 
assembly provided it includes an “insulated” equipment grounding conductor. (The term 
existing feeder has been removed. So a pool or hot tub being installed and fed from an 
existing sub panel will have to comply with the “insulated” equipment grounding 
conductor requirement).


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

from what I can gather, the state of Maine is currently testing on the 2005 NEC http://www.state.me.us/pfr/professionallicensing/professions/electricians/pdf/ElectricalCandidateInformationBulletin.pdf.

Are you telling me that they are enforcing the 2014 ? The state laws appear to show that they are only enforcing 2011 ? (state law 02-318 Chapter 120) http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/02/chaps02.htm#041


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

State of Maine Electrician's Examining Board is in the process of adopting 2014...should be next month according to Pat Ouellette, Senior State Electrical Inspector (my old job).


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

mgawat said:


> perhaps you should reread the exception in 680.25(A)(1) Exception and look for the word 'insulated' added to the words 'equipment grounding conductor'. You will also the word insulated darkened to show the change.
> 
> UF does not contain an insulated equipment grounding conductor per it's listing.
> 
> ...


I was looking at the pdf and WOW the entire exception is missing from it. No wonder I didn't see any gray areas--- I wonder how that happened- I will report this to nfpa


----------



## Bugz11B (May 12, 2013)

mgawat said:


> Now that 2014 NEC 680.25(A)(1)exception disallows the use of a covered equipment grounding conductor in an approved cable for the feeder (I am thinking inside the dwelling unit) and replace that exception wording with the phrase:
> 'an insulated equipment grounding conductor within it's outer sheath'
> does anyone out there have any ideas how to accomplish that with an approved cable that actually contains an insulated equipment grounding conductor within it's outer sheath?
> 
> I had come up with the idea of MHFW in conduiit as an approved feeder to a remote panelboard. I couldn't come up with any ideas for an approved cable assy that contained an insulated equipment grounding conductor in the interior of a single family dwelling unit before transitioning to underground open conductors in conduit (MHFW)>


680.25 (A) (1) exception. A feeder between a remote panelboard and the service equipment shall be permitted to run in flexible metal conduit or an approved cable assembly provided it includes an “insulated” equipment grounding conductor.
(The term existing feeder has been removed. So a pool or hot tub being installed and fed from an existing sub panel will have to comply with the “insulated” equipment grounding conductor requirement).

Ever heard of MC cable?? They are saying if you feed a pool from a remote panelboard (A sub panel) the wire feeding the subpanel from the service equipment shall be permitted to run in flexible metal conduit or an approved cable assembly provided it includes an “insulated” equipment grounding conductor. This can easily be done with MC cable.

As for running it from the subpanel to the pool, simply run individual conductors in pvc... what was the question?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

mgawatt-- there is an errata that was issued by nfpa that deletes the exception



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



http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/aboutthecodes/70/errata70-14-2.pdf


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> *31. Delete the Exception in 680.25(A)(1). *
> 
> 32. Revise 680.25(B) to read as follows:
> 
> ...


THis is getting confusing. What is the_ theory_ of an insulated EGC here?

Is it that it's an important element enough that the extra protection of insulation applies?

Or is it that any unwanted gradients are isolated via this insulation

or both?

~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

This is how the 2014 should read.



NEC 680.25 said:


> (A) Wiring Methods.
> 
> (1) Feeders. Feeders shall be installed in rigid metal conduit or intermediate metal conduit. The following wiring methods shall be permitted if not subject to physical damage:
> (1) Liquidtight flexible nonmetallic conduit
> ...



They also delete the section in red from the code- it is another errata-- there are 41 errata as of today posted on nfpa site


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

chicken steve said:


> THis is getting confusing. What is the_ theory_ of an insulated EGC here?
> 
> Is it that it's an important element enough that the extra protection of insulation applies?
> 
> ...


I think the idea- no one is certain, is the chemicals that are used by the pool helps protect the conductor. Not sure how that helps if the terminals are exposed. It may also be to protect and leaking into the ground somehow when there is a broken pipe. I am guessing that this could potential put current in the ground on faults to ground.


----------



## mgawat (Mar 3, 2012)

-I know we have the same problem on the hot tub section as well. In my mind and experience the enclosure of the uf cable is far superior to most insulations of single conductors I have seen. The exposed conductor at the termination point, in my 40 years of experience has shown not to be a problem in the northern States where I live.

Thank you for the information on the errata...I did look at other errata's but missed the deletion errata.

Back to the original question, Because of the exception to the insulated equipment grounding conductor requirements, contained in 680.25(B), the interior wiring of a feeder to another building panelboard would be allowed without an insulated equipment grounding conductor because of the statement of 'for other than feeders to a separate building'. SER would be allowed for a seperate bulding feeder and one would not have to rely solely on MC cable. Thank you everyone for their input if not always their respective attitudes.


----------

