Water fall and art. 680

[dcl34769]

I am working on a putt-putt golf course that has a waterfall feature and the inspector wants me to bond the forming shell of the area where the water "pools" back to the pump motor housing. Water depth is only going to be 12-18" deep. My argument that art.680 sec.5 states that fountains only need to comply with sec,1 and 5 which do not specificly require the bond. Am i missing something or is this just a cautious AHJ call?

 

[George Stolz]

You are correct, for the reasons you've outlined. It goes without saying, be sure to comply with Part V fully, but it has no reference to 680.26.

If people aren't going to be in the fountain, then equipotential bonding of 680.26's caliber would be a waste of time and resources. In this situation, the owners would likely kick someone off the property for potentially damaging their fountain, landscaping, etc.

So I'd go so far as to say that it's not even erring on the side of caution, with that error providing some additional degree of safety; it's not providing any additional safety, IMO. 680.26 is to protect people immersed in water; with their skin resistance being low due to saturation, additional steps are required to ensure their safety from transients and whatnot.

If noone is going into the fountain, requiring above what the code asks for is erroneous.

There are some times to go beyond the code if there is a compelling life-safety issue - this doesn't logically qualify. They said "Parts 1 & 5" for a reason, the Parts left out would not add to the safety of a fountain.

JMO.

 

[77401]

If noone is going into the fountain, requiring above what the code asks for is erroneous.
JMO.

But the OP did say Putt Putt! If I'm playin the course I can promise you, if there is water, I'm going in there to retreive my balls!! (don't take that the wrong way)

So with that thought, maybe the inspector is not only "erring on the side of caution, with that error providing some additional degree of safety;" but he could be correct?

Something to think about

 

[steve66]

You could make the same argument with any fountain that someone will stick their hand in it at some point in time. So if we decide the inspector can require more than the code in this case, where do you stop?

I think the inspector is asking for more than he has a right to.

Steve

 

[haskindm]

If your jurisdiction is using the 2005 code, I believe this installation would come under the new article 682 Natural and Artficially Made Bodies of Water. 682.23 requires that all metal parts in contact with the water shall be "bonded to the grounding bus in the panelboard". 682.23 gives the requirements for Equipotential Planes. This article does not give any minimum depth requirements and does not mention whether or not people will enter the body of water. Looks like a thorough study of this new article may be needed to make sure that you have complied with its requirements.

 

[infinity]

If your jurisdiction is using the 2005 code, I believe this installation would come under the new article 682 Natural and Artificially Made Bodies of Water. 682.23 requires that all metal parts in contact with the water shall be "bonded to the grounding bus in the panelboard". 682.23 gives the requirements for Equipotential Planes. This article does not give any minimum depth requirements and does not mention whether or not people will enter the body of water. Looks like a thorough study of this new article may be needed to make sure that you have complied with its requirements.

To properly answer the question you would need to first figure out what exactly this thing is. IMO it's a fountain and would be covered under part V of Article 680 and would not require bonding. However as haskindm has pointed out someone may interpret this installation as something that falls under 682.23.

 

[dcl34769]

Thanks for everyones input. In Osceola County FL we are on the 02' Code. In responec to 77401's post I think you would be more worried about the 20 foot, yes TWENTY FEET, drop to the retention pond below. now we need a safety fence. Oh great, something else to bond. I do think Art. 682 would apply since this waterfall is approxamatly 15 feet high, thirty feet in diameter. This just shows you how many grey areas there are in the code.

 

[George Stolz]

682.1 Scope. This article applies to the installation of electrical wiring for, and equipment in and adjacent to, natural or artificially made bodies of water not covered by other articles in this Code, such as but not limited to aeration ponds, fish farm ponds, storm retention basins, treatment
ponds, irrigation (channels) facilities.

Doesn't that exclude fountains? They're specifically covered in Part V of Article 680.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

We had an "incident" at a local PuttPutt around here a few years ago. A kid went in the water for his ball and was being shocked. An adult went in after him and fell in the water. He became and is to this day incapitated and needs 24/7 healthcare.

The law suit went for $250,000,000.00 . The town, PuttPutt, EC and the electrical inspection company all were sued.

They all paid a handsome figure towards the suit, which was settled outside of court.

A pump was not properly grounded and caused the water to become energized.

 

[George Stolz]

Continuing along the path of devil's advocacy, your story has a problem, doesn't it? Not meeting the code minimum outlined in 680.54(B)(2) resulted in this dilemma, not a lack of exceeding NEC minimums. Right?

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

The moral of this story is to try to do what it takes to keep the job safe, as sometimes it does not matter who is right or wrong, it can cost a pretty penny.

I know that wiring to minimums as per code is sometimes a necessity as far as bidding. I also know that some jobs tend to be better wired more than to minimum...