For my ocean certification, I did a 100' dive off Freeport Long Island. That was in 1988Scuba diving at most sites in Massachusetts is almost the same experience.
those 120 volt circuits would already have GFCI protection via the feeder GFCI just like the 240 volt circuits
Although it would require a simultaneous double fault in two different locations to both generate a voltage gradient and not trip the feeder GFCI when the first fault occurs. A single line to neutral fault where the two insulation breakdowns are far enough apart to generate a voltage gradient is almost certain to pass enough EGC/equipotential grid current to trip a feeder GFCI.
Bonding only covers the things so bonded. If the bonding was absolute, we'd not lose people due to pool lighting.
I 100% agree with you but I'm out of options at this point and either shut down because we don't have what I'd prefer or we find a way to make it work and still meet the minimum in safety standards. It sounds like others have had good success with this so far. I don't like it by any stretch of the imagination... Once more breakers are available again we can always address that if it becomes an issue later but at least I've got a way for the customer to use their new $80,0000 dollar pool, pass inspection, and sleep well knowing we aren't going to kill anybody.
It would already be GFCI protected by his "pool panel" that has GFCI on it's feeder though. Unless he feeding lights from a different feeder, but why do that?
Yes, that primarily for keeping all objects in and around the pool at same potential. Introduce an ungrounded conductor into the pool area and you could still have a voltage gradient in its vicinity, but any leakage current would still cause the GFCI to trip and eliminate the hazard. Granted the light should be bonded and this should be pretty rare issue, but the light is about the only thing typically in the pool where you might find actual line volts being present in normal operation. Pumps and other similar items are in contact with pool water but often not where pool users are going to contact them.
Equipotential bonding isn't about fault clearing, it is about equalizing potential. Bigger concerns are over potential possibilities that a GFCI can not detect, like a grounded service conductor with voltage drop on it- even if only a couple volts drop it will impose that couple volts on all EGC's and everything bonded to the EGC whether intentionally or incidental. That leaves that voltage exposed to pool users if they get between bonded objects and true earth potential. By bonding everything in the pool area together you must be out past the perimeter of said bonding before you can be subject to that voltage gradient, presuming you didn't miss something and leave a hole in the equipotential bonding system.
Well I never liked the idea but in my area I have seen inspectors pass it. Just yesterday I went against my own judgement and used a 50 amp spa pack to feed a subpanel and the inspector failed it. I did it to save money ,bad idea and I knew it but because I saw other jobs(quite a few wired that way )I went with it. Moy only beef with the inspector is why do ya pass it for others but not me ,can ya cite me a code. He just laffed at me. Moral of the story use your better judgement. I am not even gonna recommend inspectors any more .Will just tell people call the inspector of your choice and let me know if there is a problem. The bigger issue is who trains the inspectors. How did the others guys get passed. Nice to have a level playing field at least.
Seems to be corruption in your AHJ. We don't get to choose inspectors here, not saying some things still can't happen under the table or that some may have their buddies they let get away with more, but each inspector has his/her own territory they regularly cover, they generally only go to other areas if that inspector happens to be overloaded/behind with work, is ill, on leave, etc.
