GFCI's and water movers

[goldstar]

It's been a while since I was here but, I know there is a wealth of info being passed along in this forum so, I'm back

Anyway, I live in a lake community and was asked by the lake association if I would test and inspect the electrical connections for those lake-front houses that are using water movers to keep the algae, leaves, etc. from accumulating at their docks and water fronts. The first one I inspected was done by a homeowner, but you would think it was done by an experienced electrical contractor. All wiring was done in PVC, proper connections, proper JB's, proper in-use covers and the GFCI protection worked perfectly. The next two I inspected were not so great. In both cases the GFCI protection worked perfectly but the homeowners buried 16-gauge extension cords below their lawns (and I'm sure it was not more that 6" down). One house had the extension cord buried up to one side of the lawn where he had festooned lights plugged in, split it from there and then ran extension cords on the lawn's surface down to the dock area.

So, here are my questions (aside from Code compliance)

1. Should I be concerned about electrifying the water in the water mover area as long as the GFCI's are functioning properly?
2. The lake association claims that they have no concern with Code compliance on the homeowner's property as long as the GFCI's work. Should I be concerned and/or would I have a liability in the event of an electrification?

I want to add that in most cases there would not be anyone swimming in these areas - but we don't know that for sure. The lake is about 1/2-mile long and about 1000' wide. The closest swimming area is about 800' away.

Thanks in advance for your responses.

 

[charlie b]

First and foremost, thou SHALT NOT rely on a protective device (e.g., a GFCI) as the sole means of preventing injuries to the extent that you disregard dangerous installation work that could force that protective device to perform its function.

OK, it worked when you tested it. But will it work days or years later when it is called upon to trip for its very first time? Well, we have to do our design and installation work under the belief that it will. However, that does not allow us the freedom to give it the opportunity to fail at the wrong time, when we have the opportunity to prevent the need for it to perform its function.

My answers to 1 and 2 are both an emphatic "yes."

My recommendation is to send letters to each homeowner, with copies to the association, documenting your observations, giving warning of the possible dangers, and recommending that they take action to correct the poor wiring. That, at least, should take away your risk of being held liable for any future unfortunate event.

 

[Ken_S]

You're in NJ so they should have gotten a permit, I would do as Charlie suggested with the addition of a letter sent to the local ahj

 

[goldstar]

First and foremost, thou SHALT NOT rely on a protective device (e.g., a GFCI) as the sole means of preventing injuries to the extent that you disregard dangerous installation work that could force that protective device to perform its function.

OK, it worked when you tested it. But will it work days or years later when it is called upon to trip for its very first time? Well, we have to do our design and installation work under the belief that it will. However, that does not allow us the freedom to give it the opportunity to fail at the wrong time, when we have the opportunity to prevent the need for it to perform its function.

My answers to 1 and 2 are both an emphatic "yes."

My recommendation is to send letters to each homeowner, with copies to the association, documenting your observations, giving warning of the possible dangers, and recommending that they take action to correct the poor wiring. That, at least, should take away your risk of being held liable for any future unfortunate event.

Good advice Charlie. Thank you.

 

[goldstar]

You're in NJ so they should have gotten a permit, I would do as Charlie suggested with the addition of a letter sent to the local ahj

"Should have" is often an ignored term. Yes, we all know they should have filed for a permit but this is a lake community and years ago it was a hunting area where many of the houses were log cabins or bungalows. The Code enforcement wasn't that strict at the time and many prople did their own electrical work. That said, when I visit these houses on behalf of the lake association I'm there to test the GFCI receptacles for the water movers. I point out definciences to the property owners and also make a report to the association. If the association wants to turn them in to the building dept. that's their choice but I don't believe it's mine to do. I will take Charlie's advice and write a letter to the association pointing out my findings. Thanks for your reply Ken.