6/4....6/3 w/g wire?

[curt swartz]

Dennis, if you are going the consider the SPA a separate structure it is not going to comply not matter how you define the circuit feeding the panel. The panel must be installed at least 5' from the SPA so you are still going to have the same issue with more that one circuit feeding the SPA. As I mentioned earlier these SPA's are listed a portable equipment so I'm not sure if the NEC or building code actually considers them as separate structures.

I think you are considering these sub panels as part of the listed SPA but unless the SPA manufacture includes the panel I don't see how it can be part of the listed package. I honestly don't hook up many SPA's because I can't compete with the so called SPA electricians in my area. I only connect them if for existing clients or if they are part of a larger project. The last one I did was for one of our long time GC's personal home. He called me from SPA store and asked it I wanted him to purchase a panel with GFCI's from them. The store told him the SPA required 2 circuits and he would need a sub panel. I think this panel would need to be included with the SPA and not a generic part sold separately to be part of the listing.

 

[curt swartz]

Gotmud, I'm in agreement with your inspectors. I still don't understand how having an insulated EGC in NM cable would help. 680.42(C) requires the EGC to be insulated or covered. The EGC in NM cable is considered covered by the outer jacket. If we are going to classify this supply as a feeder then an insulated EGC is required and it must be installed in a raceway.

The easiest wiring method I have found for pool feeders in dwellings is ENT aka Smurf Tube.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

sorry the code I keep posting is wrong the code referance is 680.42 (c) not 680.41 (c)

Yes, we figured that out but lets look at that article.

680.42(C) Interior Wiring to Outdoor Installations. In the interior of a one-family dwelling or in the interior of another building or structure associated with a one-family dwelling, any of the wiring methods recognized in Chapter 3 of this Code that contain a copper equipment grounding conductor that is insulated or enclosed within the outer sheath of the wiring method and not smaller than 12 AWG shall be permitted to be used for the connection to motor, heating, and control loads that are part of a self-contained spa or hot tub or a packaged spa or hot tub equipment assembly. Wiring to an underwater luminaire shall comply with 680.23 or 680.33.

This alone tells me the inspector is incorrect. It has nothing to do with a sub panel it has to do with the wiring to a self-contained spa or packaged spa or tub equip. assembly. If your units fits any of these descriptions then NM is allowed in the house.

 

[curt swartz]

Yes, we figured that out but lets look at that article.



This alone tells me the inspector is incorrect. It has nothing to do with a sub panel it has to do with the wiring to a self-contained spa or packaged spa or tub equip. assembly. If your units fits any of these descriptions then NM is allowed in the house.

But the 50 amp conductors are not being used for for the connection to motor, heating, and control loads that are part of a self-contained spa or hot tub or a packaged spa or hot tub equipment assembly. They are being used as a feeder to supply a panel that is then supplying the SPA. If you were to run the 2 required circuits from the service panel then I agree that NM cable can be used.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If you were to run the 2 required circuits from the service panel then I agree that NM cable can be used.

And that makes no sense in terms of safety. Why would feeding a small panel make a difference? Got me.

The tub is a separate structure by NEC definition if it is out in the yard. So... which violation is worse? I don't know. As I said I never hooked up a tub that required 2 feeds from my end.

Your statement about feeder vs branch circuits makes no sense since I cannot feed nm directly to the motor if it is exterior. If a DP 50 amp breaker in a wp enclosure is installed, is that not still a panel?

 

[curt swartz]

Dennis, I honestly don't really see any safety issues.

If you install the proper overcurrnet protection at the supply end I think you can consider this a branch circuit. A single circuit breaker near the tub for a local disconnect would not be required for overcurrent protection. If you install a panel with multiple smaller overcurrnet devices the wire to the panel would be a feeder and the wires between the panel and SPA would be branch circuits.

I have attached a picture from one of the SPA's instruction manuals showing a 2 circuit installation.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Dennis, I honestly don't really see any safety issues.

If you install the proper overcurrnet protection at the supply end I think you can consider this a branch circuit. A single circuit breaker near the tub for a local disconnect would not be required for overcurrent protection. If you install a panel with multiple smaller overcurrnet devices the wire to the panel would be a feeder and the wires between the panel and SPA would be branch circuits.

I have attached a picture from one of the SPA's instruction manuals showing a 2 circuit installation.

I get you but I am taking the disconnect a step further. If I install an ext. panel with one dp breaker that is the gfci for the tub would that panel need to be piped. It is a panel being used as a disconnect. My feeling is if there are 2 dp breakers in that panel it is a panel also. You are correct in that one is a feeder and the other would be a branch circuit. 680.42(C) makes no mention of feeder or branch circuit.

I just see 680.42(C) as trumping 680.25 for hot tubs

 

[gotmud]

I get you but I am taking the disconnect a step further. If I install an ext. panel with one dp breaker that is the gfci for the tub would that panel need to be piped. It is a panel being used as a disconnect. My feeling is if there are 2 dp breakers in that panel it is a panel also. You are correct in that one is a feeder and the other would be a branch circuit. 680.42(C) makes no mention of feeder or branch circuit.

I just see 680.42(C) as trumping 680.25 for hot tubs

You posted just about my exact argument to the inspectors ...They came back and said... "my wire from the main panel to the 2 breaker sub outside cannot be ran in romex and fall under 680.42(c) because that FEEDER is not feeding the tub it is feeding a sub panel for the tub....The load side of that 2 breaker sub is whats feeding the tub....If it were a single circuit then that would be OK to run romex then"....I 100% agree with you Dennis...It does not make a mention of being a feeder or branch circuit....EITHER in my opinion is feeding power to that packaged hot tub only....

 

[kwired]

I already brought up 680.42(C) back in post 17, I felt this allowed the NM with reduced bare ground conductor. Then the OP reminded me that his inspectors are calling this a feeder for pool equipment panel. I changed my opinion on this after reading carefully to figure out how his inspectors called this a pool panel.

Take a look at 680.42

680.42 Outdoor Installations.
A spa or hot tub installed outdoors shall comply with the provisions of Parts I and II of this article, except as permitted in 680.42(A) and (B), that would otherwise apply to pools installed outdoors

Part II is where this installation must be treated like a permantly installed pool and this is where the feeder supplying pool panel issue comes from.

I felt there is no issue with the NM with bare reduced grounding conductor also but I clearly see where it is not allowed.

 

[gotmud]

Ya know if the inspectors are going to enforce that this 2 breaker panel for the hot tub as being fed with a FEEDER then if you look at 680.25 (A)...It seems I could not use my kick ass 6/3 with an insulated ground anyhows.....It's not listed as one of the wiring methods...Seems it has to be in some sort of conduit anyway....Crap!!!!

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Ya know if the inspectors are going to enforce that this 2 breaker panel for the hot tub as being fed with a FEEDER then if you look at 680.25 (A)...It seems I could not use my kick ass 6/3 with an insulated ground anyhows.....It's not listed as one of the wiring methods...Seems it has to be in some sort of conduit anyway....Crap!!!!

That was what my post was about a few about yours. I still think if this panel is supplying the circuits for a hot tub only then 680.42(C) trumps 680.25(A)& (B).

I still do not see how 2 circuits to this tub is not a violation of 225.30. Perhaps if the tub is attached to the deck which is part of the house but I have done a few that we piped out in the middle of a yard. Separate structure according to art. 100 definitions.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

I already brought up 680.42(C) back in post 17, I felt this allowed the NM with reduced bare ground conductor. Then the OP reminded me that his inspectors are calling this a feeder for pool equipment panel. I changed my opinion on this after reading carefully to figure out how his inspectors called this a pool panel.

Take a look at 680.42

680.42 Outdoor Installations.
A spa or hot tub installed outdoors shall comply with the provisions of Parts I and II of this article, except as permitted in 680.42(A) and (B), that would otherwise apply to pools installed outdoors

Part II is where this installation must be treated like a permantly installed pool and this is where the feeder supplying pool panel issue comes from.

I felt there is no issue with the NM with bare reduced grounding conductor also but I clearly see where it is not allowed.

deleted .................