Thread: Metal pool filters-bonding.

Do metal pool filters have to be bonded? I didnt think so but wanted to make sure in the event I overlooked it.

Similar Threads:

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

NEC680.26(B)(6) states that all metal parts of electrical equipment associated with the pool water recirculating system shall be bonded. Double insulated equipment is the exception to that rule.

Although I don't remember ever seeing a metal filter canister, being similar to a conductive pool shell, I would require it to be bonded.

I know pool pumps have to be bonded and heat pumps have to be bonded so I don't see why a metal pool filter would not have to be bonded. These days even the earth, a wood deck, and the concrete has to be bonded when it is within 3' of the pool walls.

A wood deck?

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

A wood deck?

Yeah....the AHJ in my area requires a wood deck to be bonded. See the last line in the code reference below.

(2) Perimeter Surfaces.

The perimeter surface shall extend
for 1 m (3 ft) horizontally beyond the inside walls of
the pool and shall include unpaved surfaces as well as
poured concrete and other types of paving. Bonding to perimeter
surfaces shall be provided as specified in
680.26(B)(2)(a) or (2)(b) and shall be attached to the pool
reinforcing steel or copper conductor grid at a minimum of
four (4) points uniformly spaced around the perimeter of
the pool. For nonconductive pool shells, bonding at four
points shall not be required.
(a) Structural Reinforcing Steel. Structural reinforcing
steel shall be bonded in accordance with 680.26(B)(1)(a).
(b) Alternate Means. Where structural reinforcing steel
is not available or is encapsulated in a nonconductive compound,
a copper conductor(s) shall be utilized where the
following requirements are met:
(1) At least one minimum 8 AWG bare solid copper conductor
shall be provided.
(2) The conductors shall follow the contour of the perimeter
surface.
(3) Only listed splices shall be permitted.
(4) The required conductor shall be 450 to 600 mm (18 to
24 in.) from the inside walls of the pool.
(5) The required conductor shall be secured within or under
the perimeter surface 100 mm to 150 mm (4 in. to

6 in.) below the subgrade.

I am well aware of that article. The entire section deals with conductive surfaces. I have never seen any electrical inspector include wood as a conductive surface. The section even exempts nonconductive pool shells from bonding requirements. Seems like quite a leap in interpretation to me.

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

I am well aware of that article. The entire section deals with conductive surfaces. I have never seen any electrical inspector include wood as a conductive surface. The section even exempts nonconductive pool shells from bonding requirements. Seems like quite a leap in interpretation to me.

I am talking about the equipotential bonding requirements...not the pool shell bonding requirements. Big difference in NC....not sure about your area.

(underlining and bold red is mine)

Originally Posted by James Duffin

Yeah....the AHJ in my area requires a wood deck to be bonded. See the last line in the code reference below.



(2) Perimeter Surfaces.

The perimeter surface shall extend

for 1 m (3 ft) horizontally beyond the inside walls of
the pool and shall include unpaved surfaces as well as
poured concrete and other types of paving. Bonding to perimeter
surfaces shall be provided as specified in
680.26(B)(2)(a) or (2)(b) and shall be attached to the pool
reinforcing steel or copper conductor grid at a minimum of
four (4) points uniformly spaced around the perimeter of
the pool. For nonconductive pool shells, bonding at four
points shall not be required.
(a)

Structural Reinforcing Steel. Structural reinforcing

steel shall be bonded in accordance with 680.26(B)(1)(a).
(b)

Alternate Means. Where structural reinforcing steel

is not available or is encapsulated in a nonconductive compound,
a copper conductor(s) shall be utilized where the
following requirements are met:
(1) At least one minimum 8 AWG bare solid copper conductor
shall be provided.
(2) The conductors shall follow the contour of the perimeter
surface.
(3) Only listed splices shall be permitted.
(4) The required conductor shall be 450 to 600 mm (18 to
24 in.) from the inside walls of the pool.
(5) The required conductor shall be secured within or under
the perimeter surface 100 mm to 150 mm (4 in. to

6 in.) below the subgrade.

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

I am well aware of that article. The entire section deals with conductive surfaces. I have never seen any electrical inspector include wood as a conductive surface. The section even exempts nonconductive pool shells from bonding requirements. Seems like quite a leap in interpretation to me.

"and shall include unpaved surfaces"

"Earth" is a "conductive surface" as you referred to that section.

In fact, "earth" makes an pretty good ground path (which is why "earth" is used for that ground path), thus "earth" is addressed has having that bonding conductor in it.

It's not the wood deck above the earth which is being bonded, it is the earth below the wood deck which is being bonded.

So then yes..., it needs to be bonded?

Originally Posted by Marc M

So then yes..., it needs to be bonded?

Yes.

Much thanks Jerry.

You are actually trying to bond the elctrical equipment to the earth by bonding the non-conductive deck? As the AHJ in my municipality, after doing hundred's of pool inspections, I have never heard of this nor had an electrician even as much as mention it. It's ridiculous. A deck is not a paved surface, nor is it conductive and I am not aware of any reports of electrical related injuries to occupants of decks due to bonding.

If you really think the deck needs to be bonded, isn't it bonded by its contact with the ground already?

Would you bond to a Rubbermaid storage container next to the pool?

Are there any reports or technical papers out there regarding this?

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

You are actually trying to bond the electrical equipment to the earth by bonding the non-conductive deck? As the AHJ in my municipality, after doing hundred's of pool inspections, I have never heard of this nor had an electrician even as much as mention it. It's ridiculous. A deck is not a paved surface, nor is it conductive and I am not aware of any reports of electrical related injuries to occupants of decks due to bonding.

If you really think the deck needs to be bonded, isn't it bonded by its contact with the ground already?

Would you bond to a Rubbermaid storage container next to the pool?

Are there any reports or technical papers out there regarding this?

I hate to bust your bubble but you are wrong. The last hot tub I wired was set on an existing concrete pad and I had the option to either cut an groove in the concrete for the bond conductor or build a wood platform around the tub 3' out and attach the bonding conductor to the underside of the platform. The customer chose to cut a groove in the concrete. As you can see in the code reference below it says shall include unpaved surfaces. To our local AHJ that includes gravel, stone, wood, or dirt. There will be a bonding conductor 18-24" from the pool wall regradless of what the surface is.

Perimeter Surfaces.

The perimeter surface shall extend
for 1 m (3 ft) horizontally beyond the inside walls of
the pool and shall include unpaved surfaces as well as
poured concrete and other types of paving. Bonding to perimeter
surfaces shall be provided as specified in
680.26(B)(2)(a) or (2)(b) and shall be attached to the pool
reinforcing steel or copper conductor grid at a minimum of
four (4) points uniformly spaced around the perimeter of
the pool. For nonconductive pool shells, bonding at four

points shall not be required.

Don't worry about breaking my bubble, I don't have one. I'm not wrong, I just disagree with a very loose AHJ interpretation. I don't require non-conductive surfaces to be bonded. Concrete and the earth are conductive, wood is an insulator.

When I write correction orders they are accompanied by specific code sections. If there is a gray area I get a written interpretation. I would just like to see what arguments the AHJ used to determine that wood decks need bonding.

Please excuse the strong stand I am taking here, I don't mean to be offensive. That requirement just doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

You are actually trying to bond the elctrical equipment to the earth by bonding the non-conductive deck? As the AHJ in my municipality, after doing hundred's of pool inspections, I have never heard of this nor had an electrician even as much as mention it. It's ridiculous. A deck is not a paved surface, nor is it conductive and I am not aware of any reports of electrical related injuries to occupants of decks due to bonding.

If you really think the deck needs to be bonded, isn't it bonded by its contact with the ground already?

Would you bond to a Rubbermaid storage container next to the pool?

Are there any reports or technical papers out there regarding this?

There is an electrical shock potential as you are leaving the pool ,on any surface .the requirement is to reduce the likelyhood of shock and the 3ft measurement from the pool out is where the equipotential for shock diminishes. The further you go the less it is reduced. Has been in the codes for a couple of years.

So what do you require if a pool or hot tub has a wooden ground-level deck around it? Do you ignore the equipotential bonding requirements?

You can only electrically bond things together that are electrically conductive. Would you bond the aluminum siding? Yes. Would you bond the earth? Yes. Would you bond a plastic shed? No. Wood deck? NO.

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

You can only electrically bond things together that are electrically conductive. Would you bond the aluminum siding? Yes. Would you bond the earth? Yes. Would you bond a plastic shed? No. Wood deck? NO.

I bet the electricians in your area love you!

I don't know many contractors that love their inspectors or like having their work inspected. But there is a mutual respect developed from accurate and professional installations and inspection.

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

I don't know many contractors that love their inspectors or like having their work inspected. But there is a mutual respect developed from accurate and professional installations and inspection.

Well I for one like our inspectors and appreciate their help. A new one can be a pain but after the first year they calm down! If they want a bonding grid on a wood deck that is what they get....especialaly when that is what the code says. BTW...I like your governor!

Originally Posted by James Duffin

If they want a bonding grid on a wood deck that is what they get....especialaly when that is what the code says.

(sigh)

No one is "bonding ... a wood deck".

The code requires the bonding loop (for lack of a better word as it is a 'loop' around the perimeter of the pool at stated minimum/maximum distance from the pool) for the "unpaved surface" *below* the wood deck.

As a code inspector it goes this way:
- 1) The contractor submits the documentation stating THE WAY THEY WANT to do the work.
- 2) The plan reviewer reviews the work to make sure it meets the applicable code, sends the documentation back for revision if it does not.
- 3) The plan reviewer approves THE WAY THE CONTRACTOR HAS AGREED to do the work.
- 4) The contractor goes out there and does the work THEY WAY THEY WANT to do the work.
- 5) The inspector goes out and inspects the work to make sure the work IS THE WAY THE CONTRACTOR AGREED to do the work, the way the contractor did the work, as the contractor wanted to do the work, NEEDS TO MATCH THE WAY THE CONTRACTOR AGREED to do the work ... if the work matches, the contractor gets a big okie dokie, but ... if the work does not match THE WAY THE CONTRACTOR AGREED to do the work, the contractor fails the inspection and gets to do the work again.

The inspector DOES NOT TELL the contractor HOW TO DO THE WORK, the inspector only tells the contractor HOW NOT TO DO THE WORK if the contractor did not do what the contractor said they would do.

In case you did not notice it reading the above - it is up to the contractor say how they are going to do the work to code, and it is up to the contractor to do the work as they said they would do it.

The inspector simply says 'Good job.' or 'Why didn't you do it like you said you would?'

When the contractor turns to the inspector and says "Okay, tell me how you want me to do it and I will do it that way.', the inspector simply smiles and says 'Okay, DO IT LIKE YOU SAID YOU WOULD.'

Let's put an end to the nonsense. We bond conductive surfaces only which includes the earth below a deck but not the deck itself(unless such is of a conductive material.)

There may be some misunderstanding by some inspectors as to the correct interpretation of the code. Unfortunately, state code officials cannot seem to interpret that which is written either which promulgates the confusion even further.

In NY, we inspect to the 2008 Code. Such a cause for misinterpretation has been properly addressed in the 2011 Code, however; since we are mandated to inspect to the 2008 Code, we can't use the wording from the 2011 Code.

Additionally, I would like to elucidate that in spite of how the system is designed to function, most of what I inspect has not been subject to plan review and it is the responsibility of the inspector to educate as well as inspect.

No, we should not design a job nor dictate how such should be performed, however; when a contractor misunderstands that which is written, it IS the responsibility of the code official to reiterate interpretation of such.

Maybe it's different here because as an inspector for a municipality in NY, I am also a state certified Code Enforcement Officer.

I have been in the electrical vocation for 30 plus years and I have always developed contempt for inspectors who would not disseminate Code. Llicensed contractors should know the code, however; they do not have their noses buried in the book on a daily basis and it is up to the code official to educate when necessary.

The fact that I will take the time to explain interpretations of the code is part of what earns the respect of the contractors with whom I endeavor with on a daily basis.

There is no more definitive proof of the manner in which individual inspectors interpret electrical code or any other building code than this forum. The difference of opinion is palpable and often argued ad nauseum.

If you want to be respected in this business you have to be open to discussion, willing to listen and willing to educate.

Otherwise you will be percieved as THAT inspector who is a joke to everyone when you're not around.

Well done Richard, thank you.

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by Richard D. Fornataro

Let's put an end to the nonsense. We bond conductive surfaces only which includes the earth below a deck but not the deck itself(unless such is of a conductive material.)

There may be some misunderstanding by some inspectors as to the correct interpretation of the code. Unfortunately, state code officials cannot seem to interpret that which is written either which promulgates the confusion even further.

In NY, we inspect to the 2008 Code. Such a cause for misinterpretation has been properly addressed in the 2011 Code, however; since we are mandated to inspect to the 2008 Code, we can't use the wording from the 2011 Code.

Additionally, I would like to elucidate that in spite of how the system is designed to function, most of what I inspect has not been subject to plan review and it is the responsibility of the inspector to educate as well as inspect.

No, we should not design a job nor dictate how such should be performed, however; when a contractor misunderstands that which is written, it IS the responsibility of the code official to reiterate interpretation of such.

Maybe it's different here because as an inspector for a municipality in NY, I am also a state certified Code Enforcement Officer.

I have been in the electrical vocation for 30 plus years and I have always developed contempt for inspectors who would not disseminate Code. Llicensed contractors should know the code, however; they do not have their noses buried in the book on a daily basis and it is up to the code official to educate when necessary.

The fact that I will take the time to explain interpretations of the code is part of what earns the respect of the contractors with whom I endeavor with on a daily basis.

There is no more definitive proof of the manner in which individual inspectors interpret electrical code or any other building code than this forum. The difference of opinion is palpable and often argued ad nauseum.

If you want to be respected in this business you have to be open to discussion, willing to listen and willing to educate.

Otherwise you will be percieved as THAT inspector who is a joke to everyone when you're not around.

I think you said that not matter what the code says it is up the local AHJ to decide what is required so really there is no way they can be wrong. And our local AHJ would think you are just as wrong as you think they are.

Also where in the 2011 code is this cleared up?

At the risk of beating this subject to death I will leave this thread with this:

Wrong is anyone who thinks that an electrical connection to a piece of wood does something other than waste time and money.

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

At the risk of beating this subject to death I will leave this thread with this:

Wrong is anyone who thinks that an electrical connection to a piece of wood does something other than waste time and money.

And as I said....to get a job passed you have to do what the inspector says? I'm sure not going to argue over $10 worth of copper wire.

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

Wrong is anyone who thinks that an electrical connection to a piece of wood does something other than waste time and money.

No ... "wrong is anyone who thinks" that anyone on this thread has said anything about connection to a piece of wood ... sheesh, NOTHING has been said about that, and trying to leave the thread with that statement is ... well ... WRONG.

I can see that after 30 years in electrical that you still do not have a clue regarding bonding of and around swimming pools ...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

No ... "wrong is anyone who thinks" that anyone on this thread has said anything about connection to a piece of wood ... sheesh, NOTHING has been said about that, and trying to leave the thread with that statement is ... well ... WRONG.

I can see that after 30 years in electrical that you still do not have a clue regarding bonding of and around swimming pools ...

No Jerry, you missed it.

I know pool pumps have to be bonded and heat pumps have to be bonded so I don't see why a metal pool filter would not have to be bonded. These days even the earth, a wood deck, and the concrete has to be bonded when it is within 3' of the pool walls.

Not saying it was right but it WAS SAID and that is what Ray responded to. We are on the same team saying the same thing here guys; keep it civil.

Jerry, your post was innacurate and offensive. It is those kind of posts that made me hesitant to join in on these threads for months after becoming a member. All I wanted to accomplish was to clarify that only conductive surfaces need to be bonded and that home inspectors should not be requiring a bond to a deck. Somehow that turned into a personal attack on my abilites. Why do so many of these threads contain so much negativity and aggression? These threads are great learning tools and could be more positive experiences if we could refrain from that.

Originally Posted by Jim Luttrall

No Jerry, you missed it.

Not saying it was right but it WAS SAID and that is what Ray responded to. We are on the same team saying the same thing here guys; keep it civil.

Jim,

Yes, I sure did miss it - my apologies on that one.

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

Jerry, your post was innacurate and offensive.

Ray,

My statement was inaccurate, yes, because I did miss where that was said.

However, my statement was no more offensive than your statement was. It's like the pot calling the kettle black - you could have said what you said in a more civil manner. If you want civil, keep it civil yourself too.

My apologies if I offended anyone. Sometimes the typed word comes across differently than intended. I'll word things more carefully in the future. I used to be a contractor and it really aggravated me when inspectors made me do things that were not in the code.

Originally Posted by Ray Norton

I used to be a contractor and it really aggravated me when inspectors made me do things that were not in the code.

And as an inspector ... it is aggravating when contractors refuse to do things *which are* in the code.

I had this discussion today with a contractor: You (not 'you' as in you, Ray, but as in talking to the contractor) submitted a plan which said this is how you want to do the work; we, the building department, reviewed those plans and said 'okay, you are good to go'; and here we are with you having not done the work as you said you would, you did it differently; I cannot pass your inspection until you do it like you said you would, or submit revised plans showing how you want to do it now, in which case we will need to review the revised plans.

After some discussion the contractor said 'Okay, just tell me how you want me to do it and I will do it that way.' - to which I replied 'I want you do to it the way you said you would do it.'

It is not the inspectors, guys, it is the contractors ... they submit one thing and then try to do something else and expect the inspectors to ignore the changes.

What's a metal pool filter?

If you mean a metal tank filled with filter media, that's one thing .... but if you'rereferring to a little basket that keeps leaves, etc., from entering the return line, I'd say 'no.' I'd consider that one of those incindental things (like nozzles) that need not be bonded.