Understanding 680.26(C)

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

guschash

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
I have been reading my " Analysis of Changes " and 680.26 (C ) bonding of pool water. How do you this, I don't understand this. And what type of connector is best for bonding the re-bar. Can I just use steel tie wires.
 
Any of the parts that require bonding ,.hand rails , ladders, or light,..If you don't have any of these,.. a section of metal pipe in the circulation system or contact this guy he has created a plate that mounts in the skimmer
#4 http://forums.mikeholt.com/showpost.php?p=850440&postcount=1

As far as the re bar ,.if it is uncoated the steel tie wires are effective ,... there are many manufacturers of bonding clamps for steel re bar..
 
Last edited:
Here is a clamp used often

cimg3432_edited.jpg
 
Thanks M.D.
The water bonding plate is called Bond Save 680 we have them for in-ground and above ground pools. They are going for U.L. listing. Sum of the supply houses in my area are carrying them.
 
Won't that look pretty ugly when it starts rusting? If you mean in the concrete thats know good because in a vinyl liner or fiberglass pool they insulate between the concrete and the water.
 
Joe Mush said:
Won't that look pretty ugly when it starts rusting? If you mean in the concrete thats know good because in a vinyl liner or fiberglass pool they insulate between the concrete and the water.
Click to expand...

The purpose is to bring the surrounding concrete and the pool water to the same potential. The earth ground can still have stray voltage, there isn't much you can do about it.
 
inspector141 said:
The way I read 680.26(C), the bonding of pool water is not required if the requirements in 680.26(B) is met.
Click to expand...

True as long as something from that specified list is in contact with the water and totals 9sq inches.
 
inspector141 said:
The way I read 680.26(C), the bonding of pool water is not required if the requirements in 680.26(B) is met.
Click to expand...

Although I see what you mean, I believe 680.26(C) is saying if metallic parts in part (B) are in contact with the water at least 9 sq. in then that will satisfy 680.26(C). If you just had a perimeter surface bond then that would not satisfy (C).
 
I am a pool builder and their are a lot of parts like the ladders and hand rails that are either powder coated stainless or plastic. they would not be any good for bonding the water.
 
I am definately seeing it both ways now. However, 680.26(C) does not exclude perimiter bonding.
Code: 
It says, this bond shall be permitted to consist of [U]parts [/U]that are required to be bonded in 680.26(B).
If it wanted to exclude perimiter surfaces, 26(C) would not have included the entire 26(B) in its paragraph. If 26(C) means conductive 9 sq inches, then it would have excluded 26(B)(1,2,6,7), because you can't have 9sq inches of rebar or pool equipment in direct contact with the water. So why did it include all of 26(B) in the paragraph of 26(C)?

Does anyone know the specific intent of the code making panels thinking on this one?

I'm so confused!
 
inspector141 said:
because you can't have 9sq inches of rebar or pool equipment in direct contact with the water. So why did it include all of 26(B) in the paragraph of 26(C)?

Does anyone know the specific intent of the code making panels thinking on this one?

I'm so confused!
Click to expand...


I think if the reinforcing steel is naked in the highlighted type of pools your water is bonded ,..no??

Did you click on the link I provided?? ,.. that study was used to make the argument for the bonding of pool water

(1) Conductive Pool Shells. Bonding to conductive pool shells shall be provided as specified in 680. 26(B)(1)(a) or 680.26(B)(1)(b). Poured concrete, pneumatically applied or sprayed concrete, and concrete block with painted or plastered coatings shall all be considered conductive materials due to water permeability and porosity. Vinyl liners and fiberglass composite shells ar shall be considered to be non-conductive materials.
a. Structural Reinforcing Steel. Unencapsulated structural reinforcing steel shall be bonded together by steel tie wires or the equivalent. Where structural reinforcing steel. encapsulated in a nonconductive compound, a copper conductor arid shall be installed in accordance with;- 680.26(B)(1)(b).
Click to expand...
 
CMP 17 originally rejected the idea of bonding the water,.
__________________________________________________ _________
17-122 Log #1894 NEC-P17 Final Action: Reject
(680.26(C) (New) )
__________________________________________________ __________
Submitter: Frank C. Lambert, Georgia Tech/NEETRAC / Rep. National
Electric Energy Testing, Research, & Applications Center
Recommendation: Insert a new Section 680.26(C) as follows:
680.26(C) Pool Water. An intentional bond of a minimum conductive surface
area of 5806 mm 2 (9 in 2 ) shall be installed in contact with the pool water.
This bond shall be permitted to consist of parts that are required to be bonded
in 680.26(B).
Renumber the present sections sequentially from (C) to (D), (D) to (E), and
(E) to (F).
Substantiation:
Bonding of metal parts in and around a swimming pool to an
equipotential bonding grid is extensively covered in 680.26. The intent of this
bonding is to equalize the voltages between the pool water and the deck
including any attached metal structures or parts. 680.26 has been effective in
mitigating stray voltage problems, especially in the case of fiberglass
swimming pools or pools with insulated liners.
680.26 describes various metal parts and equipment that require bonding with
an equipotential bonding grid. In describing these metal parts, it is assumed
that one or more of the parts are in contact with the pool water. This may not
always be the case. Some pools do not have any bonded metal parts in contact
with the water. In such a case, intentional bonding of the water is necessary to
equalize the water-to-deck voltages. Presently, 680.26 does not have a
provision for intentional bonding of the pool water.

Panel Meeting Action: Reject

Panel Statement:
The submitter has not provided adequate substantiation.
There are issues such as conductivity of water, changes with water temperature,
current flow, size of conductors, etc. that need to be addressed.

Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 2
Explanation of Negative:

HIRSCH, B.: The testing done by the National Electric Energy Testing,
Research and Applications Center (NEETRAC) clearly substantiates that the
potential for shock hazard is increased in pools where the pool water is not
bonded via metal parts in the pool. Results of this testing were reported to
Panel 17 at the proposal meeting in January of 2006. Based on this testing, EEI
supports the adoption of this proposal and as such is voting negative to the
panel?s action. At the proposal meeting, Panel 17 indicated they had additional
questions that needed to be answered before supporting this proposal. The
panel statement, however, did little to document those concerns. Just as the
submitter needs to provide compelling substantiation for a code change, the
code panel has the responsibility to provide a justifiable technical basis to
reject well supported proposals.

JHONSON, D.:
I agree with the Submitter?s substantiation, and, in addition,
the substantiation of the NEETRAC testing results reported to Code-Making
Panel 17 at the ROP meeting in January of 2006. I have provided additional
relevant pool test results from a project supervised by the university of
Newcastle, Australia and sponsored by Energy Australia. This reports a
potential shock hazard when conditions exist effectively bridging the isolation
of the pool water provided by an insulated pool shell.
This issue should be revisited.
Note: Supporting Material is available for review at NFPA headquarters.
__________________________________________________ __________
Click to expand...

They reversed themselves at the comment stage


17-99 Log #1190 NEC-P17
(680.26(C) (New)
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Neil F. LaBrake, Jr. , National Grid Rep. Edison Electric Insitute-Electric Light & Power Group

Comment on Proposal No: 17- 122
Recommendation: Accept Proposal 17- 122.

Substantiation: Testing done by a National Laboratory (NEETRAC) clearly substantiates that the potential for shock hazard is present in pools where the pool water is not bonded via metal parts in the pool. With this knowledge and confirmation of a potential shock hazard , CMP- 17 must address the issue. NEETRAC, in its proposal , recommended a
solution for bonding pool water. The proposed solution was tested and worked successfully. While the proposed solution may not be the only solution , it meets the NEC criteria of providing minimum protection for the public.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept

17-98 Log #802 NEC-P17
(680.26(C) (New)
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Frank C. Lambert, Georgia TechlNEETRAC
Comment on Proposal No: 17- 122
Recommendation: Proposal 17- 122 should have been adopted in its entirety.
Substantiation: Extensive testing clearly substantiates that the potential for voltage gradient is present in pools where the pool water is not bonded via metal parts in the pool. With this knowledge and confirmation of a voltage gradient hazard , the CMP must address the issue. Test results, handed out at the Proposal Meeting, show that the presence of a touch potential exists in all areas of the pool and that the proposed solution for bonding pool water will essentially reduce that potential to zero. While the proposed solution may not be the only solution , it meets the NEC criteria of providing minimum protection for the public. The test report in its entirety has been submitted to this Comment for further review by the Panel Members.
Typically, pool water is considered electrically conductive due to dissolved chemicals. Although the conductivity will vary with the temperature, the change in conductivity for all practical purposes is not a factor in the application of a proposed solution. Again, the proposed solution meets the NEC criteria of providing minimum protection for the public
and should be viewed as a protection measure compared to having no protection.
In the proposed solution , the size of bonding conductor is not specified. This is in line with several Bonded Parts described in 680.26(B). In 680.26(B)(1), (B)(2), (B)(3), and (B)(5), use of a minimum of #8 AWG size wire is implied as specified in 680.26(B)(4) and 680.26(C). In the stray voltage field, ground currents are rarely determined due to measurement difficulties and inaccuracies. On the other hand , resulting voltage gradients (stray voltages), however, are very easy to measure and can be directly used to analyze stray voltage problems and their mitigation. As evidenced by the test report, the proposed solution is based on such stray voltage measurements around a swimming pool. Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top