Need Advice on a Spa Hookup

Status
Not open for further replies.
ActionDave said:
I don't think you can direct bury the feed to a spa.
Click to expand...
I was looking at that myself, but I wasn't sure. I couldn't find anything that said otherwise.

There is 680.10 which prohibits underground wiring within the 5ft perimeter of a pool, unless supplying pool equipment, but I don't know anything that would explicitly prohibit this. Do you?
 
ActionDave said:
I don't think you can direct bury the feed to a spa.
Click to expand...
Unless we assume that 680.10, which is explicitly addressing "POOLS," and requires "complete raceway systems of RMC, IMC, or Nonmetallic" also applies to a spa, because it falls under the parent section "Article 680 - Swimming Pools, Fountains, and Similar Installations."
 
ActionDave said:
Well there is 680.1 that says "The provisions of this article apply to...swimming, wading, therapeutic, and decorative pools; fountains; hot tubs; spas; and hydromassage bathtubs"
Click to expand...
I stand corrected. Well done.
I read 680.10 prior to posting that comment, but didn't think to apply it to spas.

Just because I'm an argumentative SOB, lol, I will say 680.10 is rather misleading by explicitly addressing pools alone when it applies to all installations covered by the parent article.

Good thing I've never done a spa with DB before.

Just out of curiosity.. what danger would it pose? The cable being corroded by the environment?
How is it any different than a normal DB cable underground? Aside from the fact that water is potentially being splashed around.
 
Last edited:
Mfg instructions, and also stands to reason that if a feeder EGC can't be bare, why would a branch circuit be allowed to have a bare EGC?
 
Little Bill said:
Mfg instructions, and also stands to reason that if a feeder EGC can't be bare, why would a branch circuit be allowed to have a bare EGC?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, per 250.118(1) a bare EGC is allowable, generally speaking, unless restricted by other parts of the code
such as 680.25(B), but again, the section is for feeders.

Or, are you intending to say that, FOR ARTICLE 680, because the feeders require an insulated EGC, we should assume that the same applies for branch circuits to smaller installations covered under the same article?

I mean, that's fine if that's your position, it's not without logic, as long as we both understand that that is NOT explicitly stated.
 
Thank you to all who commented on this mess. Here is a marked up photo of the potential job that I should have posted from the start. For anyone who may still be interested, you can see my issue with the 36" or more span on the surface of the concrete and a possible post for the disconnect. I was first thinking it could go on the side of the house but there's a downspout and rain barrel and seeing where the spa is located, it would be out of sight. Going under the downspout and turning the corner into the disconnect may be an option. But then the conduit has to go down, over to the edge of the slab, go underground, back up, then go across the top of the slab at least 36 inches to the spa!
 

Attachments

  • 2022-07-03MOD.jpg
    2022-07-03MOD.jpg
    67.4 KB · Views: 28
What's going to support that deck when those poles are removed?

I would tell the customer the conduit should come up through the concrete. Tell him you can make it so there is minimal work to do to plug the hole if the tub is removed. Either that, or some ugly something covering the conduit. He could also build some type of short fence/barrier on each side of the conduit to keep foot traffic from going through and hitting the conduit. (Off the record, he could put something over the conduit and remove it after inspection.)
 
Amps said:
Thank you to all who commented on this mess. Here is a marked up photo of the potential job that I should have posted from the start. For anyone who may still be interested, you can see my issue with the 36" or more span on the surface of the concrete and a possible post for the disconnect. I was first thinking it could go on the side of the house but there's a downspout and rain barrel and seeing where the spa is located, it would be out of sight. Going under the downspout and turning the corner into the disconnect may be an option. But then the conduit has to go down, over to the edge of the slab, go underground, back up, then go across the top of the slab at least 36 inches to the spa!
Click to expand...
See Post #6, Article 680.12

680.12 Maintenance Disconnecting Means
One or more means to simultaneously disconnect all ungrounded conductors shall be provided for all utilization equipment other than lighting. Each means shall be readily accessible and within sight from its equipment and shall be located at least 1.5 m (5 ft) horizontally from the inside walls of a pool, spa, fountain, or hot tub unless separated from the open water by a permanently installed barrier that provides a 1.5 m (5 ft) reach path or greater. This horizontal distance is to be measured from the water's edge along the shortest path required to reach the disconnect.
 
Jerramundi said:
I was looking at that myself, but I wasn't sure. I couldn't find anything that said otherwise.

There is 680.10 which prohibits underground wiring within the 5ft perimeter of a pool, unless supplying pool equipment, but I don't know anything that would explicitly prohibit this. Do you?
Click to expand...
I believe 680.10 is 680.11 in 2020 NEC, which is what I was looking at. As worded there, I'd say no underground wiring is allowed within 5 feet horizontally of the pool (pool meaning any body of water covered by 680), unless it is one of the wiring methods mentioned. Exception would be wiring directly associated with the pool, though it still would need to be one of the methods mentioned.

Bare EGC? That would mostly be an issue with say UF cable or at one time maybe was more common with direct buried conductors - though neither one of those is acceptable within 5 feet of the pool anyway.

So this means not only must you use one those methods to supply the pool/spa, you can't place the unit above your service lateral, a feeder to a detached building, etc. You can place it within 5 feet horizontally if any those items are in methods mentioned though.
 
Ask them if they'd consider moving the spa closer to the edge if the patio so that you could just LB into the side of the thing.
 
You could really solve all your questions by just getting a builder, or yourself, to install a little barrier. You could negate the min. 5 ft distance from water's edge to disconnect requirement (n.b. ..but still requires a min. 5ft reach measurement, which implies a raised barrier) and use it, arguably, depending on who is judging the install, to protect the surface mount run from damage.

Have a builder design a little staircase or something to cover the surface mount run. Problem solved. And you got some framing, depending on the overall design, to secure your raceway to. Nicer install too. Lot's of work climbing into those spa's 😅
 
Last edited:
kwired said:
I believe 680.10 is 680.11 in 2020 NEC, which is what I was looking at. As worded there, I'd say no underground wiring is allowed within 5 feet horizontally of the pool (pool meaning any body of water covered by 680), unless it is one of the wiring methods mentioned. Exception would be wiring directly associated with the pool, though it still would need to be one of the methods mentioned.
Click to expand...
Agreed. This has already been clarified, but yes.

kwired said:
Bare EGC? That would mostly be an issue with say UF cable or at one time maybe was more common with direct buried conductors - though neither one of those is acceptable within 5 feet of the pool anyway.
Click to expand...
The question for this was WHY would a bare EGC NOT be allowable...
It IS ALLOWABLE per 250.118(1) but 680.25(B) only says not allowable for FEEDERS.
So technically speaking, there is nothing that explicitly prohibits a bare EGC for a single branch circuit, that I can see as of now.

Since asking this question, I've did some digging on the forum and the consensus seems to be protection from corrosion.

The only argument you could make would be an implied argument:
It is IMPLIED that since it is not allowable for feeders, it is not allowed for branch circuits either.
It is IMPLIED that since we're assuming this rule is for protection from corrosion (e.g. exposure to water), and since a conduit installed outdoors is considered a wet location, no bare EGC in conduit either.

But again, these are both IMPLIED, not EXPLICIT.

kwired said:
So this means not only must you use one those methods to supply the pool/spa, you can't place the unit above your service lateral...
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Jerramundi said:
You could really solve all your questions by just getting a builder, or yourself, to install a little barrier. You could negate the min. 5 ft distance from water's edge to disconnect requirement (n.b. ..but still requires a min. 5ft reach measurement, which implies a raised barrier) and use it, arguably, depending on who is judging the install, to protect the surface mount run from damage.

Have a builder design a little staircase or something to cover the surface mount run. Problem solved. And you got some framing, depending on the overall design, to secure your raceway to. Nicer install too. Lot's of work climbing into those spa's 😅
Click to expand...
Does placing a non readily detachable folding spa cover on same side count as a barrier?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top