I was asked about an install where a E/C had fed a wet-niche pool light and a receptacle in the same conduit. Each had it's own set of 3 conductors (H-N-EG). My first thought was that if this were allowable, both sets of conductors would need to be GFCI protected, however, if i read 680.23(F)(3)(3) correctly that is not a requirement. The receptacle conductors terminate at a GFCI receptacle which seems to be the only requirement. Am I reading this correctly ?
Pool Light Conduit
- Thread starter augie47
- Start date
- Status
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Are these lights off a transformer that is 15v or less?
No. Line voltage, but that section starts out "(3) Conductors. Conductors on the load side of a ground-fault circuit interrupter or of a transformer, "
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
But it says:
I must be missing something.:?
I must be missing something.:?
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
My interpretation is that the pool lights is GFCI protected and the receptacles is gfci at the end of the line. IMO, this is a violation.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
There are two scenarios there
1) listed gfci in the branch circuit or
2) power supply for luminaires operating at not more than 15 volts. The 2011 does not use 15V but states the low voltage contact limits.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
That is what I was trying to say, my short version was not clear.
I want to agree, but you need to walk me thru it.
Where does it say the 2nd circuit must be GFCI protected (at the source) ?
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Gus 680.23(F)(3)(1) states that the conductors on the load side of a gfci (the light cir) cannot occupy the same raceway as other conductors unless (1) the other conductors are GFCI protected. The conductors to the GFCI rec are not gfci protected the load side of the GFCI is gfci protected and the receptacle itself.
Dennis,
I see what James states (don't like it, but see it)... 680.23(F)(3) states:
"one of the following conditions exists".
and in this case (3) exisits.
Makes no sense to me as the GFCI at the end of the run has no
effrect on the circuit.
I looked back at -05 and the wording was the same.
I see what James states (don't like it, but see it)... 680.23(F)(3) states:
"one of the following conditions exists".
and in this case (3) exisits.
Makes no sense to me as the GFCI at the end of the run has no
effrect on the circuit.
I looked back at -05 and the wording was the same.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Remember the PM I sent you. It is one of those days. I agree. Boy, I guess that changed somewhere along the line and I missed it. If I read the article thru I wouldn't have.... :dunce:
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
I was telling Gus how somedays I get everything wrong in my posts. Somedays I feel good about my posts but sometimes it goes from bad to worse. Today is one of those days.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Yes, as I read it now that is correct. It seems like 3 is okay since the gfci receptacle does protect the wire on the line side in that if there is a load issue it will trip and protect the wires in the conduit. I am not sure why this is an issue. I never understood it since this is not the rule in other areas just pools-- that I know about anyway.
I probably should have waited till tomorrow to post this reply. :lol:
- Status