Driving a rod at a pool

[wbalsam1]

I had an inspector tell me he failed a job the other day because the pool installer/electrician drove a ground rod at the pool area and connected it in with the bonding grid.

My reading of 680.26(B) suggests that while driving a rod is not required, it is permitted. What are your thoughts? Thanks.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

My thoughts are the same as yours---that's scary-- What is the difference between bonding to a ground rod or bonding to an equipotental grid or the pool steel.

I see no problem with it but I agree it is unnecessary.

 

[JohnJ0906]

I had an inspector tell me he failed a job the other day because the pool installer/electrician drove a ground rod at the pool area and connected it in with the bonding grid.

My reading of 680.26(B) suggests that while driving a rod is not required, it is permitted. What are your thoughts? Thanks.

What was his reason for failing the instalation?

 

[electricalperson]

I had an inspector tell me he failed a job the other day because the pool installer/electrician drove a ground rod at the pool area and connected it in with the bonding grid.

My reading of 680.26(B) suggests that while driving a rod is not required, it is permitted. What are your thoughts? Thanks.

driving a rod does nothing since all the wire, rebar if used, and the big ufer ground if theres a concrete deck installed is probably lower resistance than the rod. it does not create more of a danger unless he was thinking that driving a rod might hit some underground utility or something

 

[ibew441dc]

I had an inspector tell me he failed a job the other day because the pool installer/electrician drove a ground rod at the pool area and connected it in with the bonding grid.

My reading of 680.26(B) suggests that while driving a rod is not required, it is permitted. What are your thoughts? Thanks.

I'm curious.....Did he site you a specific violation....or even something close for that matter??

Or was it one of those. "Fix or else's I'm the AHJ" or maybe "the code says it is , and its not my job to educate you"

From the info gathered I would offer the suggestion that it is permissible:smile:

 

[ibew441dc]

... it does not create more of a danger unless he was thinking that driving a rod might hit some underground utility or something

Is hitting some underground utility a code violation?:grin:

 

[wbalsam1]

I'm curious.....Did he site you a specific violation....or even something close for that matter??

Or was it one of those. "Fix or else's I'm the AHJ" or maybe "the code says it is , and its not my job to educate you"

From the info gathered I would offer the suggestion that it is permissible:smile:

No, he didn't cite a code violation specifically, but I remember him mentioning that it was in the code. I haven't been able to find it, though. :-?:smile:

 

[wbalsam1]

What was his reason for failing the instalation?

He claims it's against the code. But, I haven't been able to find where that's true.

 

[TOOL_5150]

No, he didn't cite a code violation specifically, but I remember him mentioning that it was in the code. I haven't been able to find it, though. :-?:smile:

Oh of course: "its in there somewhere"


~Matt

 

[Dennis Alwon]

He claims it's against the code. But, I haven't been able to find where that's true.

It could be 680.26(B) but if it is, he is misinterpreting it.

(B) Bonded Parts. The parts specified in 680.26(B)(1) through (B)(7) shall be bonded together using solid copper conductors, insulated covered, or bare, not smaller than 8 AWG or with rigid metal conduit of brass or other identified corrosion-resistant metal. Connections to bonded parts shall be made in accordance with 250.8. An 8 AWG or larger solid copper bonding conductor provided to reduce voltage gradients in the pool area shall not be required to be extended or attached to remote panelboards, service equipment, or electrodes.

 

[wbalsam1]

It could be 680.26(B) but if it is, he is misinterpreting it.

I agree. "Shall not be required" is not the same intent as "Shall not be permitted". To write a red tag on "Shall not be required" is just not the right thing to do.