a swimming pool is going in ground. it is already dug and the steel is in place. there is a power company pole about 10 feet away from the pool. they have 3 support cables comming down to support the wooden power company pole and there are 3 rods driven into the ground that land 4'6" from the pool water. art. 680.26.(7) says any metal parts within 5' of the pool must be bonded. inspector says do not bond it and there is nothing in the code from preventing them from doing this. since the power company rods are bonded at the pole and at the neutral at the transformer seems like a hazard. power company was on site and said they have no problem with it. does anyone have any thoughts on this?
to bond or not to bond
- Thread starter boatfull
- Start date
- Status
cripple
Senior Member
- Location
- Santa Fe, New Mexico
to bond or not to bond
The NEC my not require it to be bonded, but since the NEC is a bare bone minimum safety code and the best interest of safety BOND it to pool steel.
The NEC my not require it to be bonded, but since the NEC is a bare bone minimum safety code and the best interest of safety BOND it to pool steel.
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
I would bond it.
K8MHZ
Senior Member
- Occupation
- Electrician
Are these guy wires?
If so, there should be insulators on them and they wouldn't be electrically connected to the neutral.
If so, there should be insulators on them and they wouldn't be electrically connected to the neutral.
erickench
Senior Member
- Location
- Brooklyn, NY
If these three rods are already bonded to the utility neutral through the support cables and if the metal rebars of the pool shell are bonded to the service neutral then a connection should already exist. I think that NEC 680.26 applies to isolated metal parts that must be bonded.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
The bonding is to eliminate the chance of there being a voltage difference between the pool and any metal within 5'. There is probably enough conductor between the pool and the ground rod to create a difference in potential. I would bond it to eliminate any doubt.
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
Great question.
680.26(B)(7) does not apply.
I would not bond. Read the commentary in 680.26(A).
What about 250.53(B) and 250.56?
680.26(B)(7) does not apply.
I would not bond. Read the commentary in 680.26(A).
What about 250.53(B) and 250.56?
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
If there is no insulators on the guy wire/ ground rods, and the guys/ground rods are bonded to the MGN at the pole, then if you bond it, you will place the EPG bonding and the EGC of the pump feed in parallel with the service neutral, I don't think it would be wise to bond it, as now you will have circulating neutral currents on you EPG.
If it is more then 5' from the pool it is not required by code.
If it is more then 5' from the pool it is not required by code.
Last edited:
- Location
- Massachusetts
I agree with this 100%.
- Location
- Massachusetts
They are less than 5' from the pool.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
There will be a potential difference between the guys and the pool bonding system. While a bond to the guy may increase the current flow, it will reduce the votlage potential between the guy and the pool bonding system. With the bond the only potential would be from the voltage drop on the bonding conductor between the guy and the pool bonding system. This potential will be less than the potential that will exist without the bond.
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
I agree, I just don't like the thought of having a #12 EGC to the pump in parallel with the service neutral, if the service neutral ever fails, (and they do) the egc could catch something on fire, if it is run inside the house.
My thought would be to try to get the utility to relocate these grounding rods, a little farther away to allow the over 5' allowance.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
True, but also when the service neutral fails there will be a very large voltage gradient in the earth between the utility guys and the pool.
I would want it a lot more than 5' away and would put an more extensive bonding grid around the pool.
robert pitre
Member
- Location
- Houma,la
I would bond it.
I would bond it.
NEC 280.26 B(5) saids, all fix metal parts within the distances of the pool" except those separated from the pool by a (permanent barrier), shall be bonded.
5.(1) within 5ft. horizontally of inside walls of pool.
5.(2) 12 ft vertically above max. water level of pool.
Do we have a permanent barrier?
I would bond it.
NEC 280.26 B(5) saids, all fix metal parts within the distances of the pool" except those separated from the pool by a (permanent barrier), shall be bonded.
5.(1) within 5ft. horizontally of inside walls of pool.
5.(2) 12 ft vertically above max. water level of pool.
Do we have a permanent barrier?
there is now but i think with the guy wires within 5' of the pool still creates a potential hazard. the guy wires are bonded to the pole which is attached to the neutral. it does meet code with the barrier there
jxofaltrds
Inspector Mike®
- Location
- Mike P. Columbus Ohio
- Occupation
- ESI, PI, RBO
If attached to the neutral don't we have a paralleled path?
Since the potential for load is so great, I am inclined to agree with the inspector.
Why bring the potential of so much potential into the pool area? If the ground is dry, the earth resistance might be enough to melt the bonding conductor, but to not blow the poco safety, and then you just have an electrified pool.
Why bring the potential of so much potential into the pool area? If the ground is dry, the earth resistance might be enough to melt the bonding conductor, but to not blow the poco safety, and then you just have an electrified pool.
- Status