Pool GFCI question

Status
Not open for further replies.
augie47

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
Occupation
State Electrical Inspector (Retired)
We came upon a pool/hot tub installation this week where there was a 60 amp feeder to a sub-panel for the pool. The 60 amp feeder is GFCI protected with the contractor thinking that would suffice for all pool/hot tub GFCI requirements (excluding existing outlets, etc)
To me the fact that 680.23 (A)(3) speifies "GFCI in the branch circuit" would mean the underwater lighting requires a GFCI in the branch circuit.
Other than that, can anyone think of an area where branch circuit GFCI protection is required as opposed to feeder GFFCI protection ?
 
augie47 said:
We came upon a pool/hot tub installation this week where there was a 60 amp feeder to a sub-panel for the pool. The 60 amp feeder is GFCI protected with the contractor thinking that would suffice for all pool/hot tub GFCI requirements (excluding existing outlets, etc)
To me the fact that 680.23 (A)(3) speifies "GFCI in the branch circuit" would mean the underwater lighting requires a GFCI in the branch circuit.
Other than that, can anyone think of an area where branch circuit GFCI protection is required as opposed to feeder GFFCI protection ?
Click to expand...


Umm, if the feeder is GFCI protected, then to me, all the branch circuits are also GFCI protected...
 
Good point. And, it probably offers the same protection, but, speaking more from a liability standpoint, 680.23 says the "GFCI shall be installed in the branch circuit"

Plantiff's lawyer: Mr. Inspector, yes or no, was there a GFCI in the branch circuit on that job you inspected?

All other 680 references I find say "GFCI protected", but not 680.23.

From my standpoint, it's a "red tag"
 
augie47 said:
Good point. And, it probably offers the same protection, but, speaking more from a liability standpoint, 680.23 says the "GFCI shall be installed in the branch circuit"

Plantiff's lawyer: Mr. Inspector, yes or no, was there a GFCI in the branch circuit on that job you inspected?

All other 680 references I find say "GFCI protected", but not 680.23.

From my standpoint, it's a "red tag"
Click to expand...

I kind of agree with you, but you will never make it to court because the main GFCI will do the job and no one will ever need to sue... :grin:
 
If the spa tub were a stand alone packaged unit and the lighting inside the tub is installed by the manufacturer you do not need any further GFI protection. However, from your description, this hot tub is part of the pool itself. If you're GFI protecting the feeder and should a ground fault situation occur you would end up shutting down the entire pool operation. If this is an in-ground pool (and I'm assuming it is) and the pool and spa motors are fixed in place and wired direct they are not required to be GFI protected. It seems like an expensive way to go to buy a 2-pole 60 amp GFI breaker to protect the sub-panel feeder when all you would need is a s/p 20 GFI breaker insdie the sub-panel for the lights, not to mention the inconvenience of shutting down everything should a nuisance fault occur

Sorry, just my two cents worth..
 
The pool and pool light are one part of the job, the hot tub is a seperate unit but in the same general location.The feeder is GFCI protected and in turn does protect all equipment fed from this sub. However the code does indicate GFCI for the branch circuit for the light in the pool not the feeder. 2008 680.23 (A) (3)
I must assume the GFCI protected feeder will be sufficent for the stand alone hot tub/seperate equipment which is on a 30 amp HACR breaker at the disconnect means and also at the GFCI protected sub panel ?
 
augie47 said:
From my standpoint, it's a "red tag"
Click to expand...
I infer that your role on this project is to inspect the electrical contractor's installation, and I agree that you should give it a "red tag." If we as an industry are going to object to Inspectors that make up their own rules to impose more restrictive requirements than the code imposes, then we should not object when an Inspector enforces words that are clearly contained in the code. I cannot tell you why a separate GFCI for the lighting branch circuit makes the system more safe than having a GFCI only at the feeder. But I don't need to explain why, and neither do you.
 
I also agree. The language of 215.9 specifically references where GFCI protection of the feeder is permitted to be used in lieu of branch circuit protection. Article 680 ain't one of em.
 
augie47 said:
All other 680 references I find say "GFCI protected", but not 680.23.
From my standpoint, it's a "red tag"
Click to expand...

I will have to disagree with everyone here because I can. ;)

If there is GFCI protection in the feeder than there is GFCI protection in the branch circuit. It does not say that GFCI must be installed as part of the branch circuit. It says in the branch circuit-- well it is in the branch circuit-- IMO.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I will have to disagree with everyone here because I can. ;)
Click to expand...
You are most welcome to do so. Consider yourself disagreed back to. ;)
Dennis Alwon said:
It does not say that GFCI must be installed as part of the branch circuit. It says in the branch circuit-- well it is in the branch circuit-- IMO.
Click to expand...
Look again, my friend. The word "installed" is part of the sentence. The GFCI "shall be installed in the branch circuit . . . ."

However, the "branch circuit" does not begin until you get to the final overcurrent device. By then, in this installation, you will have already gotten past the GFCI. Thus, the GFCI is not "installed in the branch circuit," if it is present only in the feeder.
 
charlie b said:
You are most welcome to do so. Consider yourself disagreed back to. ;)

Look again, my friend. The word "installed" is part of the sentence. The GFCI "shall be installed in the branch circuit . . . ."

However, the "branch circuit" does not begin until you get to the final overcurrent device. By then, in this installation, you will have already gotten past the GFCI. Thus, the GFCI is not "installed in the branch circuit," if it is present only in the feeder.
Click to expand...

It is installed in the branch circuit simply by being installed in the feeder. The GFCI device is not in the branch circuit but I don't see where it says I must do that. I still disagree...:)
 
Dennis Alwon said:
The GFCI device is not in the branch circuit but I don't see where it says I must do that.
Click to expand...
The word "in" showing up immediately after the word "installed" doesn't do it for you? :-?
Dennis Alwon said:
It is installed in the branch circuit simply by being installed in the feeder.
Click to expand...
It is in one, or it is in the other. They are separated by an overcurrent device, so an item cannot be "in" both.
 
You pretty much have to enforce it as written and branch circuit is specified just like the GFCI for a storable pool cord [680.31] or a vending machine [422.51] is required to be in the cord.

But my main confusion is with understanding what the second sentence in 680.23(A)(3) means. . How do you apply that sentence ?

"likely fault-condition combination"
What ?
I don't know what that means.

"a conductive path"
Do we have to look at conductive paths on the load side of the GFCI ? . If so then there's a bunch of them and I don't know which ones should be seen as a problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top