I was hoping to get some opinions on an inspection issue that I recently encountered.
Background: a permit was pulled for an addition to a single-family residence. The addition consists of a covered patio (open on three sides) with an outdoor kitchen. The foundation for the addition directly abuts the perimeter surface of an existing in-ground pool. The rebar for the new foundation is 5' from the pool (water). There are no walls or other barriers between the addition and the pool.
Due to the fact that the new foundation is essentially an extension of the pool surface, I asked that the steel for the addition be bonded, either to the existing pool surface steel or the pool equipment. The electrician argued that this is not necessary because the new steel is more than 3' from the water (2023 NEC, 680.26 (B)(2)).
Should the new foundation be bonded and considered part of the pool's equipotential plane?
Background: a permit was pulled for an addition to a single-family residence. The addition consists of a covered patio (open on three sides) with an outdoor kitchen. The foundation for the addition directly abuts the perimeter surface of an existing in-ground pool. The rebar for the new foundation is 5' from the pool (water). There are no walls or other barriers between the addition and the pool.
Due to the fact that the new foundation is essentially an extension of the pool surface, I asked that the steel for the addition be bonded, either to the existing pool surface steel or the pool equipment. The electrician argued that this is not necessary because the new steel is more than 3' from the water (2023 NEC, 680.26 (B)(2)).
Should the new foundation be bonded and considered part of the pool's equipotential plane?