CA pool bonding grid (again and again...)

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mayjong

Senior Member
hey all-
o-k , in the 07 CA electric code- 680.26 it says " ... the equipotential common bonding grid shall extend under paved walking surfaces for 1 m (3 feet) beyond the inside walls of the pool..."

in your opinions , does this mean if there is no "paved walking surface" then no grid is required?

sorry , i read some of the other posts on this subject, and i didn't see anyone mention this part of 680.26 ...
 
there will be a "paved walking surface " (salt exposed concrete) surrounding about 1/2 the pool. the remaining 1/2 will be natural grade (just the 12" coping , with landscaping beyond)
my question is - if there is no "paved walking surface" per 680.26 is the 3' common bonding grid required?

also-
i think the picture (that you posted )is incorrect when using copper. (i have seen it used elsewhere to show the "common bonding grid" requirement)
680.26 (3) alternate means
lists 3 requirements,one of them being the materials and connections , one being 12" by 12" grid, and one being the securing .
don't all three need to be used to qualify as "alternate means" ??
 
Ca pool grid againand again)

Ca pool grid againand again)

M. D. said:
Not in 08 my 12oz friend,.. we are bonding under grass and under wood decks.
Click to expand...

I agree about the 08 code,but not sure about Ca.

Maybe there is some confusion here about equipotential bond and perimeter bond. And don't forget the water bond.
 
mayjong said:
me thinks the CA code reads very differently than the NEC...
why am i not surprised??
Click to expand...

Not in this instance. Section 680.26 has no CA ammendments. There are actually very few changes throughout the entire book. They are confined to Article 517 for the most part. There is one ammendment in 680 and that is 680.13 for gas chlorination equipment.

The 2007 CEC is the 2005 NEC with CA ammendments.
 
o-k so - if the CA code reads the same as the '05NEC (i don't have the NEC, just the CA code) how is 680.26 (C) being built/enforced?
i don't see it as being a #8 copper wire per the picture posted.
it says "the parts specified in 680.26(B)"sic--all the bonded parts--sic" shall be CONNECTED to an equipotential bonding grid with a solid copper conductor, insulated, covered or bare not smaller than #8 ..." the only thing i see actually describing the "grid" is 680.26 (C)(3)b.

my real question is the latter part of 680.26 (C) "the equipotential bonding grid shall extend UNDER PAVED WALKING SURFACES for 3' horizontally..."
does this mean if there is no "paved walking surface" then there is no requirement for a bonding grid???
thanks!
 
and sometimes i forget that not all folks on this forum are from CA, i must remember most are not.
so how are CA jurisdictions enforcing this? or others that are under the 05 NEC?
 
i agree, just wondering how others are doing it...
and in the scenario i posted, where would the grid be installed? (if there is no "paved walking surface")?
 
mayjong said:
i agree, just wondering how others are doing it...
and in the scenario i posted, where would the grid be installed? (if there is no "paved walking surface")?
Click to expand...

We have not had to address this yet. The closest we came was pavers over a concrete deck. We had the steel in the deck bonded.

Pavers over a sand bed? We haven't run into that yet.
 
mayjong said:
my real question is the latter part of 680.26 (C) "the equipotential bonding grid shall extend UNDER PAVED WALKING SURFACES for 3' horizontally..."
does this mean if there is no "paved walking surface" then there is no requirement for a bonding grid???
thanks!
Click to expand...

Correct for the 2007 ca if it is indeed the same as the )% but bear in mnd the 08 does require it , as mentioned. It may be worth while installing it anyway.

I would probably lay it in the ground 2" under the dirt. Why 2"-- don't ask me? I thought that was a good depth. :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top