Hydromassage spa bond question

**Marc M** · 09-23-2012, 10:02 PM

Just need to verify the bonding.
I observed

one conductor to the pump (to the G rod)
one to the metal piece between plastic pipes
and one at a G Rod - (which went back to the pump)

I assume because the copper pipes are separated from the motor etc... that there is no need to bond the copper pipes?
I did read the manual and it is installed according to their spec.
Just checking.

Similar Threads:

**Speedy Petey** · 09-24-2012, 04:10 AM

The first pic shows nothing.

The second shows the bond to the heater; required. Same goes for the motor and any enclosures, boxes or other motors.

Copper pipes MUST be bonded if they are part of the water supply or circulation system.

The ground rod is worthless, unnecessary and silly. And is NOT required by code NOR does it add ANY safety measure. It was installed by someone who did not know the code clearly enough and it was most likely a CYA tactic.

**Jerry Peck** · 09-24-2012, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Robert Meier

This is a self contained spa or hot tub and not a hydromassage tub?

Title of thread: "Re: Hydromassage spa bond question"

It *is* a hydromassage tub. Marc simply called it a hydromassage 'spa' instead of 'tub'.

Garry Blankenship · 09-24-2012, 09:01 AM

Certianly a valiant effort was made to ground & bond. The ground should have been carried from the circuit origin ground point. The surplus ground rod is not legal. Not a glaring safety hazzard IMHO, but the code discourages multiple grounds to avoid circling ground paths. I'm wondering how they attached that lug to the stainless enclosure w/o punching a hole through it ?

**Jerry Peck** · 09-24-2012, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by Garry Blankenship

Certianly a valiant effort was made to ground & bond. The ground should have been carried from the circuit origin ground point. The surplus ground rod is not legal. Not a glaring safety hazzard IMHO, but the code discourages multiple grounds to avoid circling ground paths.

" The surplus ground rod is not legal."

Not only not legal, but not bonded back to the grounding electrode system as required:
- 250.50 Grounding Electrode System.
- - All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are present at each building or structure served shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. Where none of these grounding electrodes exist, one or more of the grounding electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) shall be installed and used.
- - - Exception: Concrete-encased electrodes of existing buildings or structures shall not be required to be part of the grounding electrode system where the steel reinforcing bars or rods are not accessible for use without disturbing the concrete.

"All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are present", rod and pipe electrodes are #5:
- (5) Rod and Pipe Electrodes. Rod and pipe electrodes shall not be less than 2.44 m (8 ft) in length and shall consist of the following materials.
- - (a) Grounding electrodes of pipe or conduit shall not be smaller than metric designator 21 (trade size ¾) and, where of steel, shall have the outer surface galvanized or otherwise metal-coated for corrosion protection.
- - (b) Grounding electrodes of stainless steel and copper or zinc coated steel shall be at least 15.87 mm ( in.) in diameter, unless listed and not less than 12.70 mm (½ in.) in diameter.

I'm wondering how they attached that lug to the stainless enclosure w/o punching a hole through it ?

Those heaters come with the terminal lug already attached to the stainless steel tube.

**Speedy Petey** · 09-24-2012, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

" The surplus ground rod is not legal."

Not only not legal, but not bonded back to the grounding electrode system as required:

I question this. It would most likely be considered a supplementary, or auxiliary, electrode and therefore not be required to be bonded to the GES.
See 250.4(A)(5), 250.4(B)(4), and 250.54.

**Speedy Petey** · 09-24-2012, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Garry Blankenship

The ground should have been carried from the circuit origin ground point.

NOT true. This is a BOND, not a ground.
See 680.74

Originally Posted by Garry Blankenship

The surplus ground rod is not legal.

See previous post.

**Jerry Peck** · 09-24-2012, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

I question this. It would most likely be considered a supplementary, or auxiliary, electrode and therefore not be required to be bonded to the GES.
See 250.4(A)(5), 250.4(B)(4), and 250.54.

Your first two references ( 250.4(A)(5), 250.4(B)(4) ) support not using the earth as as an effective fault-current path and thus the electrode would need to be bonded back to the GES to resolve that.

Your last reference of ( 250.54 ) does allow for auxiliary grounding electrodes, however, again, the earth shall not be used as a fault-current path and then refers back to "the earth shall not be used as an effective ground-fault current path as specified in 250.4(A)(5) " which says:
- "(5) Effective Ground-Fault Current Path. Electrical equipment and wiring and other electrically conductive material likely to become energized shall be installed in a manner that creates a low-impedance circuit facilitating the operation of the overcurrent device or ground detector for high-impedance grounded systems. It shall be capable of safely carrying the maximum ground-fault current likely to be imposed on it from any point on the wiring system where a ground fault may occur to the electrical supply source. The earth shall not be considered as an effective ground-fault current path."
- and then refers to "and 250.4(B)(4)." which says:
- (4) Path for Fault Current. Electrical equipment, wiring, and other electrically conductive material likely to become energized shall be installed in a manner that creates a low-impedance circuit from any point on the wiring system to the electrical supply source to facilitate the operation of overcurrent devices should a second ground fault from a different phase occur on the wiring system. The earth shall not be considered as an effective fault-current path.

So, if you are trying to bond something, and then you connect it to an auxiliary ground rod driven into the earth, and the earth is *not* considered to be an effective fault-current path ... why is it being bonded to that ground rod if not to be bonded back to the GES.

That one always seems to stump me. Why drive an auxiliary ground rod into the earth if you are not allowed to use the earth as the fault-current path? Is it just that you have extra ground rods and that is how you use them up?

**Marc M** · 09-24-2012, 08:11 PM

So if I have this correct...
"if" metallic pipes were somehow connected into / onto this system, then they are also required to be bonded. I was sure of that. But, because they have a driven rod, that does not eliminate the need for effective bonding. The secondary rod, serves no purpose... Yes?
Furthermore, not shown in the image...there is no visible bonding electrode back to, or from the panel.

Garry Blankenship · 09-25-2012, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Marc M

So if I have this correct...
"if" metallic pipes were somehow connected into / onto this system, then they are also required to be bonded. I was sure of that. But, because they have a driven rod, that does not eliminate the need for effective bonding. The secondary rod, serves no purpose... Yes?
Furthermore, not shown in the image...there is no visible bonding electrode back to, or from the panel.

In my view you have it correct.

**Jim Port** · 09-25-2012, 11:30 AM

The bonding is not required to originate at the panel.

**Speedy Petey** · 09-25-2012, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

So, if you are trying to bond something, and then you connect it to an auxiliary ground rod driven into the earth, and the earth is *not* considered to be an effective fault-current path ... why is it being bonded to that ground rod if not to be bonded back to the GES.

Auxiliary rods are not for bonding.

Here is the Handbook Commentary on auxiliary electrodes:

Grounding electrodes, such as ground rods, that are connected to equipment are not permitted by 250.54 to be used in lieu of the equipment grounding conductor, but they may be used to provide a local earth reference connection at electrical equipment locations. For example, grounding electrodes may be used for lightning protection or to establish a reference to ground in the area of electrically operated equipment. Sections 250.4(A)(5) and 250.4(B)(4) also specify that the earth not be used as the sole equipment grounding conductor or effective (ground) fault current path. Auxiliary grounding electrodes are not required to be incorporated into the grounding electrode system for the service or other source of electrical supply.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That one always seems to stump me. Why drive an auxiliary ground rod into the earth if you are not allowed to use the earth as the fault-current path? Is it just that you have extra ground rods and that is how you use them up?

I'm with you. Ground rods are the enigma of our trade IMO.

**Jerry Peck** · 09-25-2012, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

Auxiliary rods are not for bonding.

We are in agreement there, however, there is a ground rod in that photo and I commented on that it was not "bonded" (the correct use of the correct word) back to the grounding electrode system, to which you replied it was not necessary to bond that back to the GES as auxiliary electrodes are not required to be "bonded" to the rest of the GES, to which I replied - basically - what is the use of an auxiliary electrode if earth is not allowed to be used for fault current and that if the auxiliary electrode is not "bonded" back to the GES then earth is being used for the path it is not allowed to be used for ...

I'm with you. Ground rods are the enigma of our trade IMO.

Amen to that.