2008 NEC 680.2 I just read the definition of permanent and most self contained spas do not meet the definition. That would mean that Section II would not apply at all. So no bonding grid or service receptacle is required for a outside, residence install of a hot tub on pavers. Am I interpreting this correctly?
Hot tubs reloaded!
- Thread starter wireman71
- Start date
- Status
wireman71 said:
There's 2 ways to get to 680 Part 2
1] The definition places you there.
2] Another Article/Section that applies to your project sends you there.
If you're sent there from 680.42 then "shall comply with the provisions of Parts 1 and 2 of this article" means what it says.
- Location
- Massachusetts
wireman71 said:
I don't understand why you do not think it applies.:-?
If the Spa or Hot tub is installed outside 680.42 applies, that sends you to parts I and II of 680.
I don't see a portable classification for hot tubs, just indoor or outdoor.
I think almost every outdoor hot tub that I've seen could be argued as being "portable". . It comes as a complete unit and is set down onto a slab. . If you cord and plug connect it, you could argue that it's "portable". . But I don't see that it makes any difference for a hot tub.
This new code rule for unpaved surfaces is going to create alot of anger not just from outdoor hot tub owners, but more often from owners of aboveground pools surrounded by grass. . #8 [680.26(B)(2)(b)(1)] around the whole pool [680.26(B)(2)(b)(2)] 18" to 24" from the pool [680.26(B)(2)(b)(4)] 4" to 6" below finished grade [680.26(B)(2)(b)(5)].
That's a big new requirement for an installation that used to only require you to remove the grass from the circle for the pool and level that area only. . Now you're out in the yard with a knife trencher or you're digging up your lawn, OUCH !
I think almost every outdoor hot tub that I've seen could be argued as being "portable". . It comes as a complete unit and is set down onto a slab. . If you cord and plug connect it, you could argue that it's "portable". . But I don't see that it makes any difference for a hot tub.
This new code rule for unpaved surfaces is going to create alot of anger not just from outdoor hot tub owners, but more often from owners of aboveground pools surrounded by grass. . #8 [680.26(B)(2)(b)(1)] around the whole pool [680.26(B)(2)(b)(2)] 18" to 24" from the pool [680.26(B)(2)(b)(4)] 4" to 6" below finished grade [680.26(B)(2)(b)(5)].
That's a big new requirement for an installation that used to only require you to remove the grass from the circle for the pool and level that area only. . Now you're out in the yard with a knife trencher or you're digging up your lawn, OUCH !
- Location
- Massachusetts
Wood / composite decks will become much more popular. :smile:
iwire said:
I brought that up at an IAEI meeting and got the feedback that the 680.26(B)(2)(b)(2) loop still applies. . The only relief you get is from the depth of 680.26(B)(2)(b)(5) because the deck surface is considered finished grade. . If there's no access under the deck you can lay the conductor on the surface of the ground and just stake it in place, but if you have access you might have to protect the conductor in some way.
IMO, they need to get rid of the word "unpaved" in 680.26(B)(2) or give an exception to 680.26(B)(2)(b)(4) [and possibly 680.26(B)(2)(b)(5)] for basic above ground pools in the grass.
Maybe wireman71 would think that an exception should apply to outdoor hottubs also. . But I don't think you ever set them on sand surrounded by grass, do you ?
David
- Location
- Massachusetts
David I don't wire pools and I will be one of the last ones to say I understand all of 680.
I am now, after trying to read 2008 680.26 more confused then ever.
Are you saying I have to bond a wood deck?
I am now, after trying to read 2008 680.26 more confused then ever.
dnem said:
Are you saying I have to bond a wood deck?
I think he is saying that even if you place a non-conductive surface around the pool- like a wood deck- there is still the requirement for having the bonding grid under it.
After re-reading 680.26 with respect of the OP I think that package spas should have been exempted from this requirement. It seems a bit much that to place a spa on my patio, that I would have to cut out my concrete and re-pour it for proper bonding.
After re-reading 680.26 with respect of the OP I think that package spas should have been exempted from this requirement. It seems a bit much that to place a spa on my patio, that I would have to cut out my concrete and re-pour it for proper bonding.
I'm just looking to install to NEC code not for loopholes. I'm going to go with the idea that you have to create a equipotential bonding grid whether portable or permanent. In this case can it be a loop of #8 bare CU around the tub 6" in the dirt as this tub is going on pavers and is plastic. Does it get attached to the tub or disconnect? 680.26(B) makes it sound like it doesn't need to? I think I will connect to the disco anyways but..
cschmid
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern cold country
last hot tub I did I call inspector before starting and discussed it and he even stopped by and looked at the site and we did not go with the ring as it was going to set on a compsit deck..best way to be compliant is to have the AHJ pre approval..
wireman71 said:
"Does it get attached to the tub or disconnect?"
You have to drop back from 680.26(B)(2), back to the main paragraph of 680.26(B) which says, "The parts specified in 680.26(B)(1) through (B)(7) shall be bonded together ....." and in 680.26(B)(6) you find the pool motor housing.
iwire said:
No you never have to bond wood [not yet, I'm sure they're considering that for 2011]
But do you have to run a bonding wire under a wood deck ? . The answer is: Maybe, it depends on some variables.
If the top deck surface is less than 6" from the surface of the ground, then the answer is yes you need a bonding loop wire, #8 [680.26(B)(2)(b)(1)] around the whole pool [680.26(B)(2)(b)(2)] 18" to 24" from the pool [680.26(B)(2)(b)(4)] but you can lay it on the surface of the ground under the deck and tack it down.
If the top deck surface is more than 6" from the surface of the ground and the deck is continuous around the entire pool perimeter, then the answer is no bonding loop required.
If the top deck surface is more than 6" from the surface of the ground but the deck is not continuous around the entire pool perimeter, then the answer is yes you need a bonding loop wire, #8 [680.26(B)(2)(b)(1)] around the whole pool [680.26(B)(2)(b)(2)] 18" to 24" from the pool [680.26(B)(2)(b)(4)] but you can lay it on the surface of the ground under the deck and tack it down. . But if there's access to enter under the deck you might have to protect the wire in some way or just go ahead and bury it 4" to 6" below the ground [680.26(B)(2)(b)(5)]. . In the pool perimeter areas that there is no deck, the loop must be buried 4" to 6" below finished grade [680.26(B)(2)(b)(5)].
David
- Location
- Massachusetts
dnem said:
David I am not really disagreeing with you (this time :smile: ) but I still do not get it. :-?
Why would I bond the ground under a non-conductive surface? :-? :-? :-?
Can anyone help me here?
electricmanscott
Senior Member
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Occupation
- Massachusetts Master Electrician, one man show.
dnem said:
I don't read anything to support what you have stated here regarding wood decks.
Last edited:
iwire said:
680.26(B)(1) is where you get wording that says the pool shell doesn't require bonding if it's nonconductive but that wording doesn't exist in 680.26(B)(2) when you're talking about the perimeter surface.
I think the nonconductive wording should be placed in the main body paragraph for 680.26(B). . But it's not there in '08.
Remember the fiasco that came from the '05 680.26 ?
They added bonding grid wording for the pool "contour". . The "blowback" was so bad that the NFPA had to come out with a TIA to backoff on the contour requirement for a nonconductive liner pool. . It was such a big issue that Ohio recognized that TIA as law. . Ohio had never adopted a NFPA TIA before.
This is the same type of situation. . As an inspector I can't state that 680.26(B)(2) only applies to a nonconductive surface because they put the nonconductive wording in (B)(1).
There's got to be a better way to establish correct code language. . Because 680.26 was such a disaster in '05, they rewrote more than 2 columns of 680.26 wording. . About now, they're getting feedback and I'll bet they're saying, "Uh Oh, we still didn't get it right !"
I would guess that if you asked the CMP members if they feel nonconductive perimeter surfaces need bonding loops under them, they would say, "No". . Why they can't manage to say what they mean, code cycle after code cycle is a mystery.
But they wrote what they wrote and we have to live with it. . If you don't want to put in a bonding loop, ask your inspector and see if he'll go along with that. . Just remember, if he follows logic instead of code, he accepts some liability. . Inspectors are shielded from liability only when they're making a good faith attempt to enforce what's written.
- Status