Can a circuit breaker located in a exterior sub panel serve as the disconnecting means for a 2 hp
Pool pump motor?
The 3R enclosure is capable of being locked and is within sight of the pump.
The chart that shows disconnecting means lists appliances.
Can a circuit breaker located in a exterior sub panel serve as the disconnecting means for a 2 hp
Pool pump motor?
The 3R enclosure is capable of being locked and is within sight of the pump.
The chart that shows disconnecting means lists appliances.
As long as the cb is within sight and 50' or less from the pump then you are good. No need to lock the panel.
this is not 100% accurate. it has to be visible from the body of water. so x-feet or less, but not hidden behind a bush or wall, etc.
The disconnect is for the pump not the water. The disconnect must not be more than 50' from the pump and within sight of the pump. I stand by my original statement.
I also said within sight
Not familiar with what is common with pool pumps, but there are general use motors of 10 HP that have internal overload protection, so it is possible the motor can have internal protection, if it does you shouldn't need to provide any other overload protection.I agree with you Dennis. Also, being that this motor is over one horse power wouldn't it also have to have a separate overload protection?
Not familiar with what is common with pool pumps, but there are general use motors of 10 HP that have internal overload protection, so it is possible the motor can have internal protection, if it does you shouldn't need to provide any other overload protection.
The disconnect is for the pump not the water. The disconnect must not be more than 50' from the pump and within sight of the pump. I stand by my original statement.
I also said within sight
in other then single family dwelling users won't have access or even know where disconnecting means is - they need to be able to shut the spa pump off, if anything just so the water will calm down enough to see what may be in the water - you don't have that problem with a pool as the water isn't so agitated and full of air bubbles like a spa is. I think there also used to be issues with people being sucked up to pump inlets and not being able to get away - but for the most part I think that problem has been lessened with different requirements for inlet openings.sorry, i quoted 680.41, "visible to users", but for tubs/spas, but it does say "in other than single fam dwelling"
680.13 only addresses maintenance disco.
does 680 address emergency shutoff for pools?
I still install the LNF222R in a location that is visible to users, regardless of single fam dwelling, or its a pool or spa.
in other then single family dwelling users won't have access or even know where disconnecting means is - they need to be able to shut the spa pump off, if anything just so the water will calm down enough to see what may be in the water - you don't have that problem with a pool as the water isn't so agitated and full of air bubbles like a spa is. I think there also used to be issues with people being sucked up to pump inlets and not being able to get away - but for the most part I think that problem has been lessened with different requirements for inlet openings.
It is not an emergency disconnect.Ok, fair enough, but using 680.12 (680.13) as a emergency disco for tub/spa?? that makes no sense.
but note my Q, why is visible emergency disco to a spa less important (not required) if its a single fam dwelling?
Ok, fair enough, but using 680.12 (680.13) as a emergency disco for tub/spa?? that makes no sense.
but note my Q, why is visible emergency disco to a spa less important (not required) if its a single fam dwelling?
Another difference is that residential spas typically have controls located right on the top edge of the tub. I haven't encountered a commercial tub set up this way. I would like to see the shutoff button bigger, (or add a shutoff, as many use a single button to toggle the various pumps on and off) but it's still quite easy to shut off the jets on a residential spa.
I think you nailed it right there
my spa has flat keypad, no "buttons" per-say, but in an emergency i am not confident folks would know the diff between the button icons or how they work. my off button you have to hold for 3sec before the unit stops the pumps. there is no standard for what spa controls look like or how they function. given the wide variance on how controls look and function, i have a LNF222R close by and visible.
but 680.41 aside, why is it noted in the MH PDF in 680.41 that the emergency shutoff can be from 680.12 (or 2017 680.13).
my spa has flat keypad, no "buttons" per-say, but in an emergency i am not confident folks would know the diff between the button icons or how they work. my off button you have to hold for 3sec before the unit stops the pumps. there is no standard for what spa controls look like or how they function. given the wide variance on how controls look and function, i have a LNF222R close by and visible.
but 680.41 aside, why is it noted in the MH PDF in 680.41 that the emergency shutoff can be from 680.12 (or 2017 680.13).
True, but redesigning of pumping system inlets I believe has also greatly reduced the real need for an emergency off switch. At same time I don't see it being easy to convince a CMP to remove a safety feature from code. The dwelling exception to the rule likely has been there since a time when more common sense approach was taken for code making process.I agree that inconsistent controls are not conducive to good emergency response. But even a three second delayed "off" could be faster than a breaker or disco switch 50' from the spa. But someone both unfamiliar and panicked would possibly not hold a touchpad button for 3 seconds.
It's difficult to avoid feeling the lack of stronger regulations isn't more pandering to spa manufacturers, who would feel their sales might suffer if the aura of luxury and tranquil relaxation would be hurt by a BigRedOffButton slapped on the side of their Backyard Oasis 6000....
True, but redesigning of pumping system inlets I believe has also greatly reduced the real need for an emergency off switch. At same time I don't see it being easy to convince a CMP to remove a safety feature from code. The dwelling exception to the rule likely has been there since a time when more common sense approach was taken for code making process.