How would this be written up if you found any “defects” or, as the AHJ would say, during a new construction inspection, “Violations”?
I get:
“You don’t have permission to access /36/8/16/99/2693816990088467614BempGi_ph.jpg on this server.”
How would this be written up if you found any “defects” or, as the AHJ would say, during a new construction inspection, “Violations”?
Joe
if this is the bonding conductor for the pool equipotential bonding grid, then I would have a comment about the way it is installed.
The bond conductor as per 680.26 is installed as an equipotential bond grid to keep the area around a pool and the pool all at the same potential, thereby reducing the potential of being shocked. It is not installed to “ground” the pool as is so often heard, therefore it is not required to be installed back to the pool panel. There is an FPN after 680.26 that says this.
Pierre:
I had hoped we could discuss the “weep hole” that is being used for the GEC at a service. Pools was my intent but the link did not want to work for me.
I have heard some say the weep hole is designed for the purpose of the GEC to enter the panel enclosure. I disagree.
25.64(E) and 250.92(A)(3) both state the conductor is required to be bonded as it enters or leaves an enclosure.
Also, cables and conductors are required to be secured to the enclosure.
This question is a recurring one. It always brings up “what is the correct connector? a Romex device?”
As for taking the 680.26 bonding back to the panel, all the FPN says is it is not required, not that it is prohibited. We also know FPNs are not code, only additional, non-binding language.
Pierre,
Good to see you here, i’ve read your post in an electrical forum that I also frequent. I, however, have to disagree with your post on this subject. It is my opinion that the hole in the panel is not a “weep hole”, but rather for the express purpose of installing the GEC. I have always used it for this purpose and have seen it used many times by others. I realize that doesn’t make it correct, but I would think that if it were not, that at least one inspector would have cited the violation. I can also see no reason not to use it for the entrance of the GEC. I think that 250.64(E) and 250.92 (A)(3) are both satisfied by the fact that the ground bar is attached to the enclosure.