Equipotential bonding

[cowboyjwc]

Sorry if this sounds like a silly question, but since we've only been on the 2008 for a year I haven't had enforce this.

Is a Equipotential bonding ring required around a self contained, above ground fiberglass spa?

 

[raider1]

Sorry if this sounds like a silly question, but since we've only been on the 2008 for a year I haven't had enforce this.

Is a Equipotential bonding ring required around a self contained, above ground fiberglass spa?

Under the 2008 NEC yes.

There is a TIA for the 2011 NEC that eliminates the requirement for the equipotential bonding grid for self contained spas, here is what it says;

Exception No. 2: A listed self-contained spa or hot tub that meets all of the following conditions shall not be required to have
equipotential bonding of perimeter surfaces installed as required in 680.26(B)(2):
(1) Is installed in accordance with manufacturer?s instructions on or above grade.
(2) The vertical measurement from all permanent perimeter surfaces within 30 horizontal inches (76 cm) of the spa to the top
rim of the spa is greater than 28 inches (71 cm).

HERE is a link to the TIA.

Chris

 

[cowboyjwc]

Thanks Chris.

I couldn't see any exception for an above ground spa, but I couldn't see any point in it either.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Thanks Chris.

I couldn't see any exception for an above ground spa, but I couldn't see any point in it either.

We have two of them to do and the hot tubs are on a deck 20 feet in the air. One has an indoor pool under it so there is epb while the other is just on a high deck. Not sure if it makes any sense to do it but there are no exceptions.

 

[cowboyjwc]

We have two of them to do and the hot tubs are on a deck 20 feet in the air. One has an indoor pool under it so there is epb while the other is just on a high deck. Not sure if it makes any sense to do it but there are no exceptions.

I agree, but look at the link Chris sent, especially if you are on the 2011.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I agree, but look at the link Chris sent, especially if you are on the 2011.

One would think if the 2011 came out with an addendum then why would they not make it retroactive to the other years. Our state says we have not adopted the 2011 so we cannot use the addendum. Now that is dumb.

 

[jusme123]

One would think if the 2011 came out with an addendum then why would they not make it retroactive to the other years. Our state says we have not adopted the 2011 so we cannot use the addendum. Now that is dumb.

I think it is dumb that some states are still on the '08 code, to me it makes no sense. Does that open up liability issue on the state/contractors part if they did not accept changes made within a 6 year period, from a code book they are using to safeguard all?

 

[cowboyjwc]

I think it is dumb that some states are still on the '08 code, to me it makes no sense. Does that open up liability issue on the state/contractors part if they did not accept changes made within a 6 year period, from a code book they are using to safeguard all?

Um, No. You go by the code that your state adopts.

 

[cowboyjwc]

One would think if the 2011 came out with an addendum then why would they not make it retroactive to the other years. Our state says we have not adopted the 2011 so we cannot use the addendum. Now that is dumb.

Yeah, we were just talking about that here in the office, and we may just go that way. It would be an informal adoption since we've already rewritten out local codes too.

 

[rich000]

I think it is dumb that some states are still on the '08 code, to me it makes no sense. Does that open up liability issue on the state/contractors part if they did not accept changes made within a 6 year period, from a code book they are using to safeguard all?

How about those states that are still on the '05 code!?!?

 

[stickboy1375]

How about those states that are still on the '05 code!?!?

Like Connecticut. Look at all the money I'm saving on not buying code books!