A change.. 680.26 Graphic

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dennis Alwon said:
And someone could put an extension cord in the water also, set a radio next to the pool, etc. You get my point.

If this is an issue then every metal door should be bonded to protect people from the cord shorting in the doorway regardless of a pool or not.
Click to expand...

And what about a metal door on a wooden frame that could become energized in the same way Bob described ,..
And the screw holding the fixed metal plant hanger could have penetrated an ungrounded conductor of the dryer branch circuit,..better bond that too:smile:
 
Last edited:
M. D. said:
better bond that too:smile:
Click to expand...

There is always a question of where the line will be drawn, we each have different ideas of where the 'proper' place for the line is.

Considering we are now bonding water I say all bets are off. :grin:
 
The problem the local inspector runs into is that he does not just enforce the NEC ( I know....bare with me IRC Haters ). Here is what the IRC says about the issue:

5. Metal-sheathed cables and raceways, metal piping and
all fixed metal parts that are within 5 feet (1524 mm) horizontally
of the insidewalls of the pool, spa or hot tub and
that are within 12 feet (3658 mm) above the maximum
water level of the pool or any observation stands, towers
or platforms, or from any diving structures, and that are
not separated from the pool by a permanent barrier.

This above is not under an equipment heading, it has its own for electrical equipment so really it becomes hard. I believe it is just not practicle to bond to the window frame or door frame...but I am sure it is done all the time.

So this is an area that needs to be cleaned up as when you get the IRC being more clear than the NEC.....it means we have work to do...lol
 
radiopet said:
I believe it is just not practicle to bond to the window frame or door frame...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean by this ,... from a practical safeguarding point of view or a WOW what a pain in the neck kind of view:-?
 
no from the practical sence if the window frame is not likely to EVER become energized as well....a Window Frame....why would I want to bond it. You can dig up your own rational for it but I just dont think it is practical...you choose to disagree.....its your choice.

Edit....I can simply come up with reasons to justify bonding to the Fence or Antenna....I just cant for the metal window frame...thats all.
 
Paul What do you think

680.26(B)

(8)Metal parts
All fixed metal parts, structures, or fittings 9 square inches or larger likely to become energized ,located on the premises within 5' of the inside walls of the pool shall be bonded
 
(8)Metal parts
All fixed metal parts, structures, or fittings 9 square inches or larger likely to become energized ,located on the premises within 5' of the inside walls of the pool shall be bonded to the equipotential bonding grid.

You know MD...they are very defined in the Handbook on the issue of door frames and metal window frames and the like. I dont have a problem doing what the NEC says as long as it says it clearly.

Heck I dont mind being wrong all the way , it is just my feelin that it should pertain to the 3' area around the pool area in regards to the bonding and I believe mike is going to submit a proposal on that. Heck , I dont have a problem with the 5' around the pool area but think they could be more specific regarding it.

Now we have to argue the "likely to become energized" ...lol....is a metal frame on a window "likely" to become energized....What is interesting is Mr. Sargent whom is part of the NFPA probably had a hand in the commentary on 680.26....guess I am not as concerned with the metal frame of a window as they are...heck I dont mind being wrong so me saying "practical" is well in my opinion something saying I dont see a hazard in it while I can argue for fence bonding and antenna bonding if within the equipotential bonding plane.

Heck man........My stance is as it was from the start, I know full well what the NEC handbook says and I look at their interp. and substitute it with my own...;)
 
the last thing I want is a faulty shaker making any possible connection to my swimming pool equipotential grid....
Click to expand...

Then why tie the pool pump into the grid?

The idea of the grid is not to keep everything at earth potential, it is to keep everything at equal potential.
 
Paul , I hope you are not upset at all,... we are just talking ..
Heck given how much stray current returns through the earth to the utility up to - 60% I'd say any conductive surface is likely to become energized , those that conduct efficiently are particullarly likely to create a gradient issue.

The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) in one of their documents state that they expect to find only 40 percent of the return current flowing over the electrical neutral conductor while 60 percent will return to the substation over and / or through the earth.
Click to expand...
 
I was trying to understand the issue Bob of your shaker statement. Are you saying having a 120V or chances are 240V shaker with an issue to possibly put 120V or 240V onto the grid....is not deminished by having the pump on a cord and plug GFCI?

Seems to me we could clean that up as well......require GFCI for all pump motors both Hardwired and Plug and Cord....now....put a GFCI on that shaker;)
 
So bob...lets nail this down.....Are you for the bonding of the Window Frames and Door Frames and I hope not just because a cord could be run through the door. Do you feel the NEC says it crystal clear this intent?

Honestly I would like to know where I went wrong.
 
radiopet said:
I was trying to understand the issue Bob of your shaker statement. Are you saying having a 120V or chances are 240V shaker with an issue to possibly put 120V or 240V onto the grid
Click to expand...

120 or 240 it's only 120 'to the grid'

I just don't really know where I would come down on any of this.

Glad I do not install pools, glad I do not have to inspect pools.
 
M. D. said:
Paul , I hope you are not upset at all,... we are just talking ..
Heck given how much stray current returns through the earth to the utility up to - 60% I'd say any conductive surface is likely to become energized , those that conduct efficiently are particullarly likely to create a gradient issue.
Click to expand...

Me upset ..heck no fella.....I enjoy listening to all points of view as long as everyone knows we all just dont have to agree. There are alot of issues around pools I would like to see done better.

Heck I have no problem bonding to the windows and door frames as long as the NEC says it better. I dont like the way it says it right now and many people on a higher pay grade than me feel the same way and some don't.
 
radiopet said:
So bob...lets nail this down.....Are you for the bonding of the Window Frames and Door Frames and I hope not just because a cord could be run through the door.
Click to expand...

Nailed down, my own view

I can think of compelling arguments for bonding these window and door frames and reasons for not bonding them.

The fact that it could be a PITA to do should not be part if the decision making process.


Do you feel the NEC says it crystal clear this intent?
Click to expand...

No, I feel it could be more clear what exactly they want here.

That is why I really would not want to be inspecting a pool as I do not fully grasp all of Article 680 and I feel very few do.
 
iwire said:
120 or 240 it's only 120 'to the grid'

I just don't really know where I would come down on any of this.

Glad I do not install pools, glad I do not have to inspect pools.
Click to expand...

Very true ....the good news is bob that 99 percent of the pools we inspect the windows and doors are more than 5' from the pool due to clearances and so on or are not conductive. Now lets not get into Hot tubs and Spa's......;)

Now I have installed alot of pools over my time and inspected my fair share and the good news is....I dont see the window or door issue come into play for the most part.....in fact I cant recall every having the issue to be honest with you.
 
I dont mean it is a PITA in my reference to not "practical". I mean I can't see a real good argument to doing it based on what if's.

I know what your saying Bob......We all wish we knew Art.680 better as I also wish it was CLEAR. Seems to me sometimes they could just write it clear but then again we all would not make the big bucks if it was coffee table material...;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top