Does the equipotential bonding conductor required by 680.26 need to conform to Table 300.5 when connecting all of the parts required in 680.26(B)(1) through (B)(7)? For example, from the lighting niche back to the pool motor. Seems odd to require a non current carrying conductor to adhere to the same burial depth requirements as a current carrying conductor.
680.26 equipotential bonding conductor burial requirements
- Thread starter bcngtr
- Start date
- Status
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
The Equipotential Bonding Conductor is still a Conductor. So 300.5 would be required to be followed. Look at Tbl. 300.5 "0 to 600 volts nominal" unless I am missing something.
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
I don't think the requirements apply just as they don't apply to grounding electrode conductors.
The equi bonding conductor is actually required to be installed 4-6 inches subgrade where used for perimeter surface bonding.
The equi bonding conductor is actually required to be installed 4-6 inches subgrade where used for perimeter surface bonding.
Last edited:
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
Scott I was looking at that as well. Like I said I must be missing something. Thanks. But perimeter surface bonding and then to Pool equipment???
Last edited:
- Location
- Logan, Utah
Greg, IMHO the equipotential bonding grid would not need to meet the burial depth requirements of 300.5 unless specifically referenced in 680.26. Article 300 is titled "wiring methods", the bonding conductors of the equipotential bonding grid would not be a "wiring method" IMHO.
Chris
Chris
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
Yeah Chris I was confused at best. Running through my mind was someone running the EBC along the top of grade. I see your point. I do not do residential pools here except for roof top and the EBC is encased in concrete after inspection. Good thread! Learn something new everyday.
That's the problem with this. Does 300.5 apply or not? NJ seems to think it does. The depth of the equipotential grid is clearly defined, however the burial depth of the equipotential bonding conductor tieing the whole system together is not. For the purposes of this discussion, assume the pool pump is located 20 feet from the pool. The conductor we are discussion is the bonding conductor from the niche of the light back to the pool pump.
vinster888
Senior Member
- Location
- Nature Coast of Florida
typically that is run with the pipe for the switch leg. if the pipe was ran and the hole was filled before that was added i sympathize. somebody goofed. another day in the life for me. but i see there is no required depth. the bonding is supposed to even the potential of all the equipment and its surrounding areas. i would think that if that direct burial wire were two feet deep the potential went out the window.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
If NJ thinks i300.5 must be met then you either comply with what they want or show them that it doesn't. I don't think it does and here is why. The grid itself can be a copper conductor and in some places must be 4 to 6 inches below the subgrade. This is found in art. 680.26(B)(2)(b)(5) Alternative Means. How can they justify that not following 300.5?
NJ sees it as a conductor. This is their opinion "Section 680.10 in the 2005 NEC provides burial depths for wiring methods, cables and conductors for electrical equipment and does not pertain to the bonding conductor. 680.26(B) does not state a required depth for the bonding conductor.
Therefore, the bonding conductor would have to comply with the depth requirements of Table 300.5 Column 1. "
Therefore, the bonding conductor would have to comply with the depth requirements of Table 300.5 Column 1. "
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
dcspector
Senior Member
- Location
- Burke, Virginia
I am actually going back to post #2 and agreeing with myself and NJ Inspectors.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
I don't see single bonding jumpers on the list.
- Location
- Logan, Utah
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Is this an inspectors opinion or is this a NJ amendment? Trevor you would know that, I assume.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Never heard of this before and I've never heard of an amendment. All of the ground rods that I've installed had the GEC or bonding jumper in a shallow trench maybe a few inches deep.
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
I believe there was a proposal that would require GECs and bonding jumpers to comply with the 300.5 burial depths. It was shot down. Maybe someone could find it.
who's opinion is this? a local inspector or a state inspector
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
This was one that was on my list for a 2011 code change proposal. Maybe just a FPN stating that 300.5 does not apply to GEC's and bonding jumpers. Never got around to actually writing it though.
- Status