Thread: Bonding pool water

Another issue that intrigued me at a 2008 NEC update class was the addition of 680.26(c).

What have you folks been seeing used to address this. Did a company come out and design a plate? How is this addressed with above ground pools?

Thanks, appreciate the input in advance.

Jeff

Similar Threads:

• Pool Safety Links
• Make pool safety a priority - Orlando Sentinel
• Bonding of raceway
• Recent drowning calls remind us of child pool safety - AZFamily (subscription)
• Wrightstown approves change to swimming pool regulations

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

Another issue that intrigued me at a 2008 NEC update class was the addition of 680.26(c).

What have you folks been seeing used to address this. Did a company come out and design a plate? How is this addressed with above ground pools?

Thanks, appreciate the input in advance.

Jeff

Try this, Jeff: Bond Safe 680

Fred,

Why would not bonding to the metal wet niche serve the same purpose?

It is already done, it is already "intentional", it is already much greater than the minimum 9 square inches required in (C), it is already in contact with the pool water, it is already one of the items in 680.26(B).

What that section is for, I believe, is for the times when wet niche lighting is not installed, such as when optical fiber lighting, small low voltage lighting, etc.. I.e., it is not a "new requirement" in the sense that the pool water is being intentionally bonded to the bonding system, it only a 'new requirement' for when a wet niche underwater light is not installed and that intentional bond to the water is no longer there - that section simply says, 'it you do not have that bond to the pool water through the wet niche fixture, make sure you install a replacement bond to the pool water'.

I agree, Jerry. The OP question was slightly different and so I named the company. Also, this new-fangled gadget bonds the water nicely on above-ground pools by being installed in water filters.

Originally Posted by Fred Warner

Also, this new-fangled gadget bonds the water nicely on above-ground pools by being installed in water filters.

That it would, yep.

Many, if not most, code revisions made from edition to edition are not actually "new" requirements but clarification of an existing requirement which was either not understood as being required or not being enforced because the wording in the code allowed some AHJ to think otherwise. These revisions are usually thought of and started by one person who says 'You know, that's not what that means, you are enforcing that wrong (or not enforcing it at all), this is what it means ... ', which sets the wheel in motion, someone one somewhere (not always the person who thought of it and started talking about it) submits a code revision (which gets rejected, it is submitted again with different documentation, gets rejected, is submitted again ... ) and other people start thinking 'you know what, that guy is right, we are not doing that as we should ... and it eventually makes it through the process and becomes code.

I know, that is a simplistic look at the code process.

Not saying that there are no new requirements, if there were not, might as well go back and use my 1897 code.

I wish they would have broken down the numbers but there was a significant number of "new" code sections added for 2008.

Jerry is absolutely correct that most are revisions to clarify points to bring more consistency to the AHJ's interpretations (I think that is what you essentially meant). Also, more people are finding creative ways to circumvent the intent of codes.

In a few instances, the codes were actually relaxed this time.

You will see that many areas that had the word "approved" were replaced with "labeled" to take away AHJ subjectivity. This way a product has to be "labeled" for a particular application rather than "approved" which can put the decision squarely in the lap of the AHJ.

I have met a local Nashville guy by the name of Charles Miller, he has spoken at our chapter meetings a few times. He is the author of several books, one is the Illustrated Guide to the NEC. He serves on some committees with the NEC and is also a national speaker for the NEC.

He also has a forum, maybe he could shed some light. charlesRmiller.com • Index page

Hi Jeff,

Everyone is confused on how to bond pool water. Try WWW.WATERBonder.com ,it's ul listed. tim

Originally Posted by tim papageorge

Hi Jeff,

Everyone is confused on how to bond pool water. Try WWW.WATERBonder.com ,it's ul listed. tim

Does not look like that fitting meets the requirements stated in the 2008 NEC regarding contact area size, not unless those fittings are quite large anyway.

Originally Posted by tim papageorge

Hi Jeff,

Everyone is confused on how to bond pool water. Try WWW.WATERBonder.com ,it's ul listed. tim

Thanks for the post, Tim. I will use these pictures in a presentation I am conducting on the electrical requirements for one -and two- family dwelling swimming pools, spas, hot tubs and hydromassage tubs. There will be 75 building inspectors in attendance.
Nice to see they are UL Listed.

Fred,



Do the math on those adapters, they likely were UL listed prior to the requirements specified in the 2008 NEC ... unless the math works out that the contact area in them is 9 square inches or greater.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Fred,



Do the math on those adapters, they likely were UL listed prior to the requirements specified in the 2008 NEC ... unless the math works out that the contact area in them is 9 square inches or greater.

We're on the RCNYS ( IRC residential code with state enhancements in New York) which is based on the 2002 NEC. I'm only suggesting to my audience that since the NEC direction is toward bonding as per 680.26(C) that the technology is ever-changing and it is now possible more than ever before to more effectively bond filters, heaters, pumps and water with these newer gadgets. Also I am keeping in mind that the usual blue blow-up Wal-Mart pool is required to have a double insulated motor.
The trouble is...I've seen lots of replacement motors that were not double insulated.

Hi Jerrry,

The math is inside area = dia x pie x length
1.5 x 3.14 x 4 = 18.9sq inches
Hope this helps. If my math was incorrect UL would not have approved this fitting. The fitting has just been approved this past week. UL was a very long grueling process. Their engineers did the calculations too. Over 9sq inches is better than the code.
thanks, Tim

Tim,

I don't see the 4" dimension anywhere, but my math says:

1.5 x 3.14 = 4.71 square inches inside diameter

needing 9 square inches of surface area makes that need to be at least 9 / 4.71 = 1.91 inches long.

The male / male fitting is reduced on the 1-1/2" hose barb end, looks like the O.D. is about the I.D. of the 1-1/2" NPT end, which will reduce the interior diameter average and increase its required length to make 9 square inches.

The 1-1/2" male x 1-1/2" female barb has much less interior surface to contact the water with, basically only 1/2 to 2/3 of the fitting length would be in contact with the water with a nonmetallic pipe inside the female barb end.

However, I see at the top that it is referring to the 2008 NEC, so I would hope that it would have met the 9 square inch minimum contact surface measurement.

Do basically the items in question have an I.D. of 1.5" and an interior length in contact with the water of 4"? Then the math sounds right. The photos don't give us any idea of the actual size which may make it hard to evaluate.

The UL listing is for the purpose of bonding under the NEC section?

I had to chuckle when someone mentioned installing a plate. Just how silly can we get? Or, how difficult can we make things?

Some insight can be gained from looking at the background that led to this requirement. For 99% of pools, it's a non-issue, and nothing extra need be done. For a problem to have a chance of developing, you need a pretty unique set of circumstances.

"Step one" is, oddly enough, something created by earlier code cycles .... an effective 'equipotential grid' around the pool.
"Step two" is a highly insulating pool shell, such as the blown PVC tubs. For some reason, the voltage gradient issue hasn't come up with even fiberglass shells (and I have no explanation for that).
"Step three" is pool plumbing and equipment that completely lacks any metal in contact with the water .... plastic pumps, filters, piping, etc.
Finally, "Step four" is to fill the pool with water that is essentially pure and non-conductive.
Now, just add electricity.

If, for whatever reason, you had a voltage gradient issue, the matter could be solved as easily as adding a bucketof saltto the pool water. (Not that I reccomend such action; I only mention it to highlight just how unique circumstances must be to cause the problem to arise).

In more practical terms, the 'water bonding' is accomplished if there is ANY bonded metal present, such as a wet-niche light. Failing that, just add asection of bonded metal pipe to the plumbing.

The one that come to my mind is the pool ladder(unless fiberglass)