I heard that there is a tenative interm amendment to rule 680.26(C) of the 2005 MEC reverting us back to the 2002 MEC regarding this new code rule on swimming pools.

But, as with any code rule, I like to see it in WRITING.

Does anyone have any further information? Has it been accepted and doesn't take effect for a few months?

I also heard that the change(TIA)was implemented due to the end cost to the consumer. Why would a change in a code rule be made because of cost?

If the equipotential bonding grid is necessary for safely masking stray voltage around a pool to protect persons using the pool, then IMO, it should be installed...

shortcircuit

Cost is always a consideration when it comes to any rules.

We would all like to say save a life at any cost but in reality that is not what we as a society do.

40,000 people a year are killed in cars, they could be made safer than they are now but they would not sell.

All things come down to a cost vs benefit decision.


Maybe that is part of it also.

Is the equipotential bonding grid necessary and / or effective?

A whole lot of pools have been installed without this grid.

Is there a history of problems with these installations?

I don't know the answer but judging from past MEC practices they are not quick to implement new rules.

http://www.nema.org/stds/fieldreps/codealerts/20050517mabrd.cfm

Iwire...I temporarily forgot that it is a real world out there. Money and politics rule.

Joe...Thanx for the link to the NEMA news article.

Did the BFPR file the emergency amendment with the Massachusetts Secretary of State?

Does anybody have a link to any ruling concerning a change to article 680.26 of the MEC?

Also, I don't ever remember any code that required a #8 bonding wire to be installed in a pour of a pool so that no point in the pour is more than 15 feet from a bonding wire, but I will read my old code books to see...

shortcircuit