Pool Equipotential Bonding NIGHTMARE

[Steve Courtney]

I am working on a commercial pool constructed in the early 1970's. The 200 amps electrical service to the building included the pool equipment area and 2 heat pumps rated at a minimum ampacity of 39 Amps each {50 amps max circuit ampacity}.
A load calculation indicated a 260 amp connected load. The HOA wants to add more to the building's service so I engaged in a contract with them to remove the pool heaters from the existing service and connect them to a separate service (for the heat pumps) thereby opening up the building's service for additional connections.

The new heat pump service was installed and approved by the local BD with the following exception: Pool bonding was not verifiable and they are trying to require us to meet the current code requirements for the 2008 code cycle.

Here is our issue. ARTICLE 680.26
(2) Perimeter Surfaces. The perimeter surface shall extend for 1 m (3 ft) horizontally beyond the inside walls of the pool and shall include unpaved surfaces as well as poured concrete and other types of paving. Bonding to perimeter surfaces shall be provided as specified in 680.26(B)(2)(a) or (2)(b) and shall be attached to the pool reinforcing steel or copper conductor grid at a minimum of four (4) points uniformly spaced around the perimeter of the pool. For nonconductive pool shells, bonding at four points shall not be required.

(a) Structural Reinforcing Steel. Structural reinforcing steel shall be bonded in accordance with 680.26(B)(1)(a).
CURRENTLY THE STEEL IS ENCASED IN A POOL SHELL THAT HAS NO APPARENT LEAKS, THEREFORE "(b)" is our only apparent choice:

(b) Alternate Means. Where structural reinforcing steel is not available or is encapsulated in a nonconductive compound, a copper conductor(s) shall be utilized where the following requirements are met:
(1) At least one minimum 8 AWG bare solid copper conductor shall be provided.
(2) The conductors shall follow the contour of the perimeter surface.
(3) Only listed splices shall be permitted.
(4) The required conductor shall be 450 to 600 mm (18 to 24 in.) from the inside walls of the pool.
(5) The required conductor shall be secured within or under the perimeter surface 100 mm to 150 mm (4 in. to 6 in.) below the sub grade.

THE EXISTING POOL DECK IS 30 FEET WIDE ON ONE SIDE AND 5 FEET WIDE ON THE REMAINING THREE SIDES. HOW CAN THE AHJ REQUIRE US MEET THIS CODE?
WHEN DOES AN ALTERATION HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO MEET ALL EXISTING CODES?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I don't know that an inspection department can do this except for the fact that it is a commercial pool. If the pool does not meet safety standards they may be able to make you repair it to ensure the safety of others. This would be a huge job. The NEC does not give us guidance so you will have to contact the inspector and his superiors.

 

[petersonra]

I think your customer is SOL. An attorney familiar with these kind of issues and with some local clout might be your customer's best bet.

I think it is best if you make it clear this is your customer's problem and let them deal with it.

 

[Steve Courtney]

I have employed an engineer to address the issue. He and I verified the existing system and he has written a letter stating that because of the age of the pool the requirement for 680.26(B)(2) does not have to be met in this instance. The Letter is under review at this time.

If the letter is not accepted, the fix for this would be catastrophic for my Client. We would have to cut away the existing pool deck in (4) locations to gain access to the pool wall and then chip away at the pool wall in search of the reinforcing rods within the pool shell. Providing we are lucky enough not to destroy the pool finish on the inside of the pool we would then have to tie into the steel and then we would have to cut into the existing pool deck to lay in the continuous #8 bare wire around the pool. The depth of which is required to be 4 to 6 inches (who comes up with this number??). So we are faced with cutting away at a pool deck that is currently structurally sound, most likely cutting away at the wire mesh that is in the pool deck.
Let us not forget that this system has been in place for over 40 years and has not received this amount of scrutiny in all that time. There hopefully will be a stepping off point that realizes this situation is getting out of control.
It?s frustrating to say the least?

 

[wirenut1980]

Out of curiousity, what do you mean when you say you verified the existing system?

 

[Steve Courtney]

This is an excerpt from the engineers letter:

The following test were then performed with the result mentioned:
1) After isolating the electrical equipment grounding conductors from the low voltage niche lights a
DC and AC impedance test was performed between each of the following items:
a. The ladders to handrail.
b. The ladder and handrail to each stranded bonding wire at the niche junction box.
c. The ladder to each metal niche light?s metal frame.
d. Each niche light?s metal frame to its individual stranded bonding wire at the niche
junction box.
e. Between one of the stranded bonding wires at the niche junction box and the pool metal
fence.
The results showed that all impedances were 3 ohms and below. It was concluded that all of the items
are effectively bonded together including the fence which isn?t required.
2) A adjustable high frequency current was then injected into the handrails, ladder and the stranded
bonding wires at each niche junction box. A tracer was used to follow the grounding system. It
was shown that the fence, ladder, handrails, and the perimeter forming shell were all highly
energized.

 

[wirenut1980]

Wow, that sucks. So it seems like the only thing missing is bonding the surrounding deck to the pool water. Seems like the only way to get out of updating the bonding to current standards is to find some legal precedent that would show the electrical work done does not require the updates.hmy:

 

[Steve Courtney]

I would like to know at what point in the 2010 Florida building code it states that I have to bring this old pool up to date. Does anyone know?

 

[Steve Courtney]

the AHJ accepted the letter from the Engineer

 

[Dennis Alwon]

the AHJ accepted the letter from the Engineer

That is great news for the owners. :thumbsup:

 

[George Stolz]

All of this was brought on by supplying existing equipment from a new service? :huh:

 

[ptonsparky]

Find that original EC and give him/her a pat on the back.

 

[Steve Courtney]

All of this was brought about by correcting work done by individuals that pose to their clients as Electrical contractors. The pool bonding connection to the equipment room was probably there once, unfortunately additions, alterations and perhaps lack of knowledge led to this conductor being eliminated. The installation of the original heat pumps was most likely a result of the Pool company contracting with my client and including a cost for the electrical connection of the equipment in his bid. HOA's like simple in an out costs and depending on the board members at the time may have not been knowledgable enough to understand the value of a licensed Electrical contractor. The pool heaters were never bonded if you can believe that.

The long an short of this is the building inspector did his job by applying pressure to the HOA and my company to create a safe condition for the users of this community pool. The Engineer did a great job inspecting the existing conditions and utilizeing common sense along with the facts to make a stand that the corrections he laid out were justifiable and met the codes for the era of the pool's original construction.

The HOA dodged a costly bullet this time.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I hope the owners appreciate what you did. :thumbsup:

 

[Steve Courtney]

I hope the owners appreciaIMO
te what you did. :thumbsup:

There is a former contractor on the HOA board and he is aware of how far south this could have gone.

I plan to inform the owners that while they were not forced to comply with this 2008 code, it is still an area they should be looking at. I still question the depth requirements of the bond conductor.

IMO a solution is to bury a conductor in a saw cut that penetrates the pool deck but does not impact the integrity of the deck. Then apply deck pagers over the area. Only require one connection to the bonding grid. I think we need to create methods that reach the safety level deemed necessary by the NEC and design code requirements around best building practices because cost is a mitigating factor.

 

[wirenut1980]

EPRI did a study comparing the single buried wire around the perimeter of the pool to the grounding mesh grid and found that the single wire provided significantly less protection than the grid. But it is better than nothing.

I tried to upload the study, but the file was too large. You can find it by Google with "EPRI Pool Bonding" and the report is PDF in the first few results.