Residential Sauna - heater GFCI protected

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sierrasparky

Sierrasparky

Senior Member
Location
USA
Occupation
Electrician ,contractor
Hello ,
I was wondering if there is code requirement to have a residential Sauna heater protected by GFCI. I cannot seem to find it in either NEC or the manufacturer.
2017 NEC or 2019 CEC California.
 
The reason I ask is plan check is requiring it and I never hear of such a requirement.
 
If it's not required under any equipment specific code and it is not in a location (210.8(A) or(B)) that it is required then NEC is not requiring it.
I'm assuming the sauna you are referring to is a manufactured self contained steam room, the only ones I've had contact with had internally provided GFCI but not sure which components were being protected or if the heating element was also protected. One was a cord/plug connection and slightly more portable the other required direct wire perminant installation.
 
I have never seen any 240v Sauna heater that is internally GFCI protected nor have I seen any that the instructions call for GFCI protection
.
 
Saunas don't require gfci unless the manufacturer is requiring it however it depends on what code cycle you are under as it may be required under 210.8
 
So the NEC requires GFCI on a dryer that DRYS clothes where its likely used in a normal environment with a fully clothed and dry person, BUT...... If you sit naked sweaty wet in a sauna next to a metal appliance with the same voltage and power as a DRYER..... that's OK, no GFCI needed there. They leave that up to the manufacture. Although would it might be considered to be under (indoor damp or wet locations) 210.8(A)(11)

I am not advocating it I am just venting.
 
mikeames said:
So the NEC requires GFCI on a dryer that DRYS clothes where its likely used in a normal environment with a fully clothed and dry person, BUT...... If you sit naked sweaty wet in a sauna next to a metal appliance with the same voltage and power as a DRYER..... that's OK, no GFCI needed there. They leave that up to the manufacture. Although would it might be considered to be under (indoor damp or wet locations) 210.8(A)(11)

I am not advocating it I am just venting.
Click to expand...

A regular sauna would not be damp or wet. The only moisture would come from the user’s perspiration.
A steam sauna, on the other hand, I think would be.
 
retirede said:
A regular sauna would not be damp or wet. The only moisture would come from the user’s perspiration.
A steam sauna, on the other hand, I think would be.
Click to expand...
I still think that would be a listing or manufacture thing as I don't see anything in the code.
 
I always opt to put a sauna on a GFCI, but as Dennis said there is nothing other than 210.8 that would require it.
I have had a problem with one a few years back it was a 120V Sauna on a GFCI,
since I have installed quite a few on 240V GFCI breakers with no issues
I called the mfr and researched the problem
This was due to capacitive coupling of the heater elements
turns out UL 875 section 43.2, it allows a leakage of .75ma on sauna EGC.
 
tortuga said:
I always opt to put a sauna on a GFCI, but as Dennis said there is nothing other than 210.8 that would require it.
I have had a problem with one a few years back it was a 120V Sauna on a GFCI,
since I have installed quite a few on 240V GFCI breakers with no issues
I called the mfr and researched the problem
This was due to capacitive coupling of the heater elements
turns out UL 875 section 43.2, it allows a leakage of .75ma on sauna EGC.
Click to expand...
You mean 7.5? GFCI trip is around 5 ma.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
 
GoldDigger said:
You mean 7.5? GFCI trip is around 5 ma.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The UL spec is .75 not 7.5.
that one particular sauna was one of those 'assemble it yourself sauna kits' they sell on amazon.
I might have a thread about it on here, it has several 'heating panels' that all plugged into a controller as part of the kit.
The manufacturer claimed that each heating panel could be considered separately per UL, combined they would trip a GFCI.
If I unplugged any one heating panel the GFCI would hold.
Upon re-reading the UL standard my opinion is the test should be done from the cord cap for the entire unit.
 
If thee were not a common 120V controller, splitting the heating panels between L1 and L2 would allow most of the leakge current to cancel.
This is also a situation in which 240V heating panels on a 120-0-120 supply would not cause a problem (the NET leakage per panel would be much smaller.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top