GerryB
Senior Member
- Location
- woodbridge, ct. USA
If you install a spa panel as a sub panel next to the main panel and it has the GFI breaker and provision to lock it out for service do you not need the disco out at the tub?
Hot tub disco not required?
- Thread starter GerryB
- Start date
- Status
- Occupation
- Licensed Electrician
Less than 50' to the tub and you can see it, no.
Last edited:
GerryB
Senior Member
- Location
- woodbridge, ct. USA
It is single family. The reason I ask is it is a service switch, correct?, not considered an emergency switch but for someone working on the tub. I was reading elsewhere if you have the means, in this example, to turn off the breaker and lock it out, you have accomplished the same thing, ie: the worker knows the power can't be turned on while he is working on it. In a discussion on transfer switches on this site I read similarly if you have a lockout for your main breaker you do not need a transfer switch. I don't know if either of these is code acceptable, but it makes a certain amount of sense. This tub I am looking at the HO cut it into the deck in a corner, walls on three sides, all of them less then 5'. I could put the disco around the corner, if you were in the tub you couldn't see it but from a few feet out of the tub you could.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
680.12 is the section that applies. It does not give any exception for a remote located disconnecting means, other then for lighting. It is in the art 680 general section and does apply to spa's.
- Location
- Placerville, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Retired PV System Designer
A lockout of the main is not as strong as an *interlock* of the main where a transfer situation is involved.
It would have to be a tightly supervised system (if then) to allow a lock other than a Kirk key (TM) system to be used.
It would have to be a tightly supervised system (if then) to allow a lock other than a Kirk key (TM) system to be used.
- Status