ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

There is a proposal to drop the deck bonding requirement for self contained spas. Needless to say it was proposed by the Spa trade group. Comments are open until Jan 14.

http://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/70/ProposedTIA1005NFPA70.pdf

With regard to the step potential...
I can't recall ever seeing a self contained Hot Tub installed below grade. The ones I have seen set-up so you can step in at grade level have a non-conductive wooden deck built around them with the tub resting on grade below usually accessible from an existing deck already raised 3-4 feet above grade. It is foolish to install a perimeter bond underneath a wooden deck.

I'm not convinced about the comments in the TIA that the person would jump back away from the tub if they were getting a jolt from putting their hand in the water with their feet on the ground and this is not a hazard.

Okay...what if this person were an adult with a newborn in one arm and places her hand in the water with the other and receives a jolt? Will she jump back and drop the infant...probably...and most likely drop the child causing serious injury or even death.

Hopefully common sense will prevail and not the almighty dollar and they will trash this ridiculous TIA.

shortcircuit

Let's see .... a plastic spa on a wood deck .... just how is one supposed to have a 'step potential?' Just how can you make a equipotential grid out of wood?

In a similar manner, just how do you instal a spa? Why, you take it off the truck and set it on the ground. That's all there is to it. Power? If there's a gas heater, an extension cord will do. Or, have a power line run to a disconnect on the wall - and the HO can just plug it in when he buys the spa 'at a later date.'

What I'm getting at is that there's not much of an opening for enforcement ... of either permit inspections or even contractor licensing.

You might as well pass a law requiring birds to sing on cloudy days. That makes for bad law, as it only creats contempt for all laws.

I am disgusted by innuendo that assumes evil motives to advocates. What about the evil motives on the part of those who sell 'bonding grids?' Just who else do you think will be in the best position to identify issues - apart from those most directly affected?

So where will this all lead? Simple: as things now stand, there is no requirement that spas be listed by anyone. For whatever reasons, the spa industry as a whole -including Jacuzzi itself- has seen no advantage to doing business with UL. Watch for there to next be a proposal to require such listing of spas. Do you believe UL to be composed entirely of angels, with holy motives?

It's not about safety; it's a power grab.

I always felt that the requirement for an equipotential grid for outdoor hot tubs was ridiculous anyway.
It’s completely useless and unnecessary, IMO. On all the units I wired, even many years ago, the branch circuits were GFCI protected with no equipotential grid installed and to this day, I’m not aware of one single incident where anyone has gotten so much as a tingle from contact with any of this equipment.
Like submitter says in his proposal, where is the data to support this requirement?

So where will this all lead? Simple: as things now stand, there is no requirement that spas be listed by anyone. For whatever reasons, the spa industry as a whole -including Jacuzzi itself- has seen no advantage to doing business with UL.

there isn't?

good grief, i thought everything had an NRTL of some sort....

i'm beside myself

~S~

Spas are usually "listed" by some trade association but these are not NRTLs

like who? the tooth fairy?

best i could goggle on it>

Component/end-product compatibility is the critical link between certification of a component and certification of the end-product in which the component is used. Use of UL Recognized Components in a spa (or any other product) does not mean the spa itself is UL Listed.

If you're unsure of the exact meaning of a given UL certification (Listing or Recognition), look in the appropriate UL Product Directory for information about a specific product certification and marking information. For example, the Swimming Pool and Spa Equipment category (WABX) begins on page 505 of the 1997 Electrical Construction Equipment Directory. The Directory will also explain any limitations and the extent of UL's evaluation in the information section preceding each product category.

If you've exhausted your information sources, here are some ways we can help. If you have the product name and catalog number, part number or system designation, call UL's Data Services at +1-847-272-8800, ext. 42396. ULDS will help find the UL category for the product in question. If you need to verify a Listing or find a file number for a product bearing a UL Mark, call +1-847-272-4909, or Customer Service at +1-877-ULHELPS. As always, Codes & Technical Services staff members at each UL office will help with other questions you may have concerning UL certifications, code compatibility or product installation.

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/corporate/aboutul/ulmarks/difference/

kinda s*cks when you take something for granted i guess....

~S~

Look, the status of any spa and UL is a real mess. Some are listed as complete units, some only have the 'skid' of mechanicals listed, and there are at least three other variations of the UL listing out there. So, even if the spa has a UL sticker, there's a lot of uncertainty as to what it means.

The spa industry is by no means the only industry to decide that they don't need anyone telling them how to make their stuff, or that they need someone to endorse their efforst. Hard as it is to believe, not every industry is dominated by trade groups and other monopoly-fostering practices.

I'm NOT being critical or sarcastic. The fact is, even the 'unlisted' spas have a pretty damn good safety record. Yet, I expect there will be a proposal to require them to be listed- and I doubt UL will object.

Reno:

A while back, a memo of some sort regarding equipotential bond grid on a wooden deck was circulating, BUT I have not physically seen or read it.

A grid was supposed to be installed on the underside of the wood decking! It took a while to stop laughing, and I just ignored it. Now it seems someone else came upon this....

I heard that story about that one as far for European side it kinda toss up as well they want to put in equipotential bond grid on wood decking as well but as far we know wood is pretty fairly good with insuating when it is dry but wet now that diffrent story.

One way it make sense but other way what the customer will say about see the grid on the deck so that kinda I don't know what I should say in right word .,,,but with steel decking that I have no question about that

And Did anyone did the actual equipotential bond test on the wood decking { plastique verison as well} ??

Merci,
Marc

The real issue is the guy who drops a packaged spa on an existing concrete patio slab (no supplemental decking).
The AHJs were requiring that they install a raised deck, nonconductive material, around the spa, out 3'. This was typically Trex or another plastic. This was to avoid tearing up the slab and putting in bonding. The spa stores have them as an accessory but I am guess the spa people thought, in tough times, it was hindering sales.

That is instering and I think it should come standard package when they land it on slab but on decking it should not be a issue but the other hand is the deck stucture itself that should be well built to withstand the weight of spa when it get filled with water in there.

Merci.
Marc

The deck kits do no go under the tub, they just ring it about 8" high and extend 3 or 4 feet out from the tub. That usually relieves them from the "paved surface" problem.

The 2005 NEC requires the perimeter bond under "paved surfaces"...2005 680.26(C)(3) requires #8 grid in a 12x12inch network

The 2008 NEC requires the perimeter bond under "unpaved surfaces" as well as "paved surfaces"... 2008 680.26(B)(2)(b) requires a #8 single conductor as an alternate means...

For 2011, the code has gone back to the 2005 method with the requirement of the grid style perimeter bond...2011 680.26(B)(1)(b)(3)

Does anyone have the 2011 ROP with regard to the change back to the grid pattern?

Why is it that the code making panels always have to mess with section 680 of the NEC? This seems like another good reason to have code making every 5 years instead of 3 years. Maybe the states should only adopt every other code change?

Remember the Chevy Corvair? The car - the focus of 'unsafe at any speed' - had a stability issue that was solved by a rather plain change to the cars' unique suspension. Note that the change was needed only by that car, and was not applied to every car out there. Not even the crusading Ralph Nader advocated making that change to any car butthe Corvair.

This whole 'equipotential bond' ballyhoo has come about because of issues with ONE particular type of pool. The problem was not seen with any other pool typeor with spas. Yet, here we are, trying to find a 'one size fits all' solution.

The pool type involved is the factory-made, welded metal pool that is coated in PVC. Here's a thought: let'sapply the fix to that design alone- and leave everything else alone.

I've looked at the ROP on the internet and I see nother regarding a 12x12inch network style grid for the perimeter bond for 2011. I made my statement from the article in the November issue of EC+M of code changes for the 2011 NEC.

I have not bought the 2011 NEC as I am waiting for the Massachusetts version.

Can anyone verify the 12x12inch grid for the perimeter in the 2011 NEC?

Thanks, shortcircuit

The #8 solid copper conductor is still acceptable in the 2011 NEC for Perimeter Surfaces, 680.26[B],2,[b] Alternate Means.

Reno,

As I have been saying for awhile that the only pool I have ever seen problems with, are the pre-formed plastic/fiberglass pools. Only they seem to have stray voltage problems. Never seen stray voltage with concrete or steel pools.

That is one unspecified advantage of the "paved surface" bonding. You are creating a Ufer ground electrode at the pool and that will mitigate most stray voltage problems by minimizing ground shift.
I often wonder if these stray voltage problems at a plastic pool could have been fixed with a couple ground rods but when you bury that #8 solid you have just made a ground ring.

A concrete pool will always be your best ground electrode, like it or not. By the time you do all the required bonding on a typical "caged" pool, you have included your pool in the ground electrode system anyway.