UL listing, Art 680 and "permanent pools..." your opinions?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Richardh247

Member
Location
Paris, TX
The other day a customer contacted me to install a receptacle to plug their pool motor into (their words). This is a brand new above ground pool with no light and a simple 120v single-phase pump.

I walked the lady and her husband through the job in order to give them a price, explaining that pools that hold more than 42" of water are considered permanent, not storable, and as such we would have to bond the water itself, the frame, the deck, etc. This took them by a bit of surprise since the pool installer himself told them that all they needed was a simple GFI with a continual-use cover on a dedicated circuit.

And looking at the pool itself left me a bit baffled - there was no approved j-box anywhere for a bond, just the motor lug. I called the pool installer and expressed my concerns.

In the end, I had to drill the metal deck to hit the pool ladder for my water bond, install a lug under the deck, then hit the frame ribs on the continuous ground loop back to the pump motor lug and onto the ground rod. This left the pool installer questioning things. He said he had been setting up pools for over 25 years in this area and never had he seen an electrician do anything but put in a ground rod and bond the pump motor.

I'm curious why the pool industry isn't on board with the "permanent" pool classification change?
In reality, every metal part on that pool, which is everything but the liner itself, is adequately bonded via the through-bolted skeleton. Unfortunately for us, the NEC does not agree with that "adequately" statement and it is tough bidding against guys who aren't doing the same scope of work I am. In the end I did get the job, thanks in part to me printing out Article 680 and showing the homeowner the bonding requirements.

It seems to me that these "erector set" above ground pool companies should have at least some built-in NEC compliance.

For example, if this pool would have been equipped with a light on the graded side (it wasn't), there would have been zero way for me to bond the ring. None. Not without excavating under the deck, at any rate. And drilling a brand-new steel deck is ludicrous - we did a clean install, but still...

Am I misreading 680 here? It seems that I am in a crowd of electricians in this area saying that the motor bond is all this is needed - I disagree, but being the only one in the room is a lonely place.

Any discussion or opinions?
 

Richardh247

Member
Location
Paris, TX
I own a pool that is more than 42" has a metal frame and is storable.

Read the code section again.

680.2

"Storable Swimming Pool. A pool above the ground that is capable of holding water to a maximum depth of 42 in."

Over 42", by its definition, is no longer a "storable" pool and is thus classified as a "permanent" pool and required to meet 680.26 criteria, with the 680.26(c) exception of non-conductive materials that does not apply to a metal deck pool.

No?
 
The other day a customer contacted me to install a receptacle to plug their pool motor into (their words). This is a brand new above ground pool with no light and a simple 120v single-phase pump.
Customer wants a permanent install of a temporary structure it's gonna involve a code upgrade.
I walked the lady and her husband through the job in order to give them a price, explaining that pools that hold more than 42" of water are considered permanent, not storable, and as such we would have to bond the water itself, the frame, the deck, etc. This took them by a bit of surprise since the pool installer himself told them that all they needed was a simple GFI with a continual-use cover on a dedicated circuit.

And looking at the pool itself left me a bit baffled - there was no approved j-box anywhere for a bond, just the motor lug. I called the pool installer and expressed my concerns.

In the end, I had to drill the metal deck to hit the pool ladder for my water bond, install a lug under the deck, then hit the frame ribs on the continuous ground loop back to the pump motor lug and onto the ground rod. This left the pool installer questioning things. He said he had been setting up pools for over 25 years in this area and never had he seen an electrician do anything but put in a ground rod and bond the pump motor.
Yet they supply neither the ground rod nor a facility to correctly bond the pump motor. Do they even supply a bond terminal on the motor?
I'm curious why the pool industry isn't on board with the "permanent" pool classification change?
They can sell anything they want. Just like the cheep wirenuts and unlisted receptical boxes down at the box store. Anything goes.
In reality, every metal part on that pool, which is everything but the liner itself, is adequately bonded via the through-bolted skeleton. Unfortunately for us, the NEC does not agree with that "adequately" statement and it is tough bidding against guys who aren't doing the same scope of work I am. In the end I did get the job, thanks in part to me printing out Article 680 and showing the homeowner the bonding requirements.

It seems to me that these "erector set" above ground pool companies should have at least some built-in NEC compliance.
In a perfect world.
For example, if this pool would have been equipped with a light on the graded side (it wasn't), there would have been zero way for me to bond the ring. None. Not without excavating under the deck, at any rate. And drilling a brand-new steel deck is ludicrous - we did a clean install, but still...

Am I misreading 680 here? It seems that I am in a crowd of electricians in this area saying that the motor bond is all this is needed - I disagree, but being the only one in the room is a lonely place.

Any discussion or opinions?
And the motor is made in china so there is no-one to sue when someone does get injured. The pool store make good money upgrading pump motors when the customer complains about getting a 'tingle' when getting in or out of the pool. Can you say 'zero financial incentive.'

My beef is pool pump rooms awash with pool water and not a UF cable or PVC fitting in sight.
 

Richardh247

Member
Location
Paris, TX
The guy I spoke with, the one who actually put the pool together, was completely unfamiliar with the change in definition. To his credit, he said he was going to investigate it and discuss it with some people in the industry he knew. He actually seemed to care and was very polite and professional.

There was a lug on the motor case, but that was it. When I got there to bid the job the motor was plugged into a 50' 14-gauge extension cord connected to another 50' 14-gauge extension cord crimped in the door frame where it went into a living room receptacle. I think the homeowners did that.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
680.2

"Storable Swimming Pool. A pool above the ground that is capable of holding water to a maximum depth of 42 in."

Over 42", by its definition, is no longer a "storable" pool and is thus classified as a "permanent" pool and required to meet 680.26 criteria, with the 680.26(c) exception of non-conductive materials that does not apply to a metal deck pool.

No?

Read further into the definition.

I don't have it on front of me but it goes on to say or a pool that has molded sides or something like that
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Read further into the definition.

I don't have it on front of me but it goes on to say or a pool that has molded sides or something like that

Here you go.

Storable Swimming, Wading, or Immersion Pool. Those
that are constructed on or above the ground and are capable
of holding water to a maximum depth of 1.0 m (42 in.), or
a pool with nonmetallic, molded polymeric walls or inflatable
fabric walls regardless of dimension.

What I do not get is why is a "storable" pool or a pool < 42" deep less dangerous electrically?
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
Here you go.



What I do not get is why is a "storable" pool or a pool < 42" deep less dangerous electrically?
Maybe it is not so much that it is less dangerous than that it is harder to bond, and the trade off was made based on that?
For example, if you erect it in a different place each year do you need to install a new equipotential grid for each location?
Certainly you do if safety is your only concern, but it is burdensome and hard to enforce.
 
Last edited:

Richardh247

Member
Location
Paris, TX
Gotcha. That still makes zero sense to me.

The deck is steel. The ladder is steel. The skeleton is steel. Poly walls aside, the entire structure is a fault path looking for a place to hang out. And what of those with an enclosed light below the water line? Just forgo the ring bond and call it good? Regardless, thanks for the clarification. I read that before about ten times but didn't see how it could apply in this case.

I'm still more comfortable with it bonded the way I do in-ground pools. If it was in my yard and it was my family, I'd ground it as a permanent pool so that's what my customers get.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
What I do not get is why is a "storable" pool or a pool < 42" deep less dangerous electrically?

I doubt anyone really thinks it is. I just see this as the NFPA realizing these portable pools are going to happen with or without the NFPAs blessing. Better that they make some reasonable accommodations for them instead of just pretending they will be installed as a permanent pool.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I'm still more comfortable with it bonded the way I do in-ground pools. If it was in my yard and it was my family, I'd ground it as a permanent pool so that's what my customers get.

I don't have a deck or a light.

I do have steel frame and a steel ladder, I don't bond them and I don't worry about it. What exactly is going to energize them?

The pump is plastic, joined to fabric sides, with plastic hoses and is supplied with a long cord with built in GFCI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top