Sauna GFCI?

[Jpflex]

Yes, it's a 30 amp 240v so no where in the code does it say a 240v hardwired appliance should be gfci protected as far as I know...

If within 6 feet of water possibly

 

[Tdubya90]

I can understand your interpretation of this poorly worded section.
But to me, the words “installed in” (emphasis added) could lead one to believe means what it says…”in” is inside.

I don't think they mean it as inside or they would've put inside the following locations. It clearly says outside and doesn't mention inside. So I'd interpret that as on the exterior of the building. Also, if you look at D it lists all the specific appliances that are required to have gfci protection. Sauna heater isn't on there.

 

[Tdubya90]

Another thing I don't know why I didn't bring up before, I think it's pretty pointless to install a GFCI breaker on a circuit that has no neutral. The GFI needs a neutral in order to function properly, no?

 

[Little Bill]

Another thing I don't know why I didn't bring up before, I think it's pretty pointless to install a GFCI breaker on a circuit that has no neutral. The GFI needs a neutral in order to function properly, no?

GFCI 2-pole breakers are put on loads with no neutral all the time. Yes, the GFCI needs the neutral to function, but that would be the line neutral. They don't need a load neutral. I put them on spa disconnects all the time where the spa itself doesn't need a neutral. But the GFCI needs the line neutral. In other words, the pigtail from the breaker needs to connect to the neutral bus, but doesn't need the neutral from the load as there would be none.

 

[Jaybone812]

Yes, but that says 150v or less. This sauna is 240v. Wouldn't an outlet mean that it plugs in and not hardwired?

210.8(a)(3) is the code rule that requires gfci protection for dwelling unit outdoor receptacle outlets . 210.8(F) says for dwellings all outdoor outlets , other than the receptacle outlets covered in 210.8(A) that are rated 150 volts or less to ground and 50 amps or less shall be provided with gfci protection . A receptacle is a device that is installed at an outlet location . A receptacle does not need to be present at an outlet location . The outlet location for an outdoor ac condenser is inside the wiring compartment of the condenser. The point in the branch circuit where the current is taking to power that equipment is the terminals on the condenser.

 

[Jaybone812]

Cuz they're outside and under 150v yo ground.

210.8(f) exception 2 , says gfci protection shall not be required for listed outdoor hvac equipment . The exception is in place until September 1 2026


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

I mean, by that logic you'd have to start putting condensers on gfci

An electrocution caused by compromised EGC to a condenser unit is sort of what triggered the change.

They have since put out an TIA on it though because not all play well with GFCI and this was to give manufacturers time to develop ones to higher allowable leakage standards.

 

[kwired]

As I read things - based on 2020 or 2023 NEC if it is a stand alone unit and located outdoors, GFCI protection should be required.

If it is located indoors in a dwelling accessory building GFCI would only be required if it happens to be connected by cord and plug.

Do I agree with the requirements, maybe not, but that is what they say once you apply NEC definitions to any NEC defined terminology used in the wording.

 

[Jaybone812]

An electrocution caused by compromised EGC to a condenser unit is sort of what triggered the change.

They have since put out an TIA on it though because not all play well with GFCI and this was to give manufacturers time to develop ones to higher allowable leakage standards.

There is already gfci protection that has a higher leakage threshold , but everything that’s listed in 210.8 requires class A gfci protection and class A protection only has a leakage threshold of 4-6 ma . That’s why cord and plug evse still requires external gfci protection. But the internal ccid that provides the GFPE has a 20 ma threshold which isn’t class A protection. Outdoor hvac equipment will need to be able to operate with Class A protection so the hvac equipment needs manufsctured to tolerate class A gfci protection , they aren’t manufacturing protection with a higher leakage threshold because that wouldn’t be class A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jaybone812]

Another thing I don't know why I didn't bring up before, I think it's pretty pointless to install a GFCI breaker on a circuit that has no neutral. The GFI needs a neutral in order to function properly, no?

Gfci breakers need a line side neutral to function . They don’t need a load side neutral to operate correctly .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jaybone812]

If within 6 feet of water possibly

The nec does call for gfci protection for certain hardwired connections The specific appliances listed in 210.8(d) require gfci protection for every method of install doesn’t matter if it’s cord and plug or hardwired gfci protection needs to be provided either way . And 210.8(F) requires class a protection for outdoor outlets for circuits that are 50 amps or less and 150 volts to ground or less . The outlet can be direct or hardwired and still require protection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I mean, by that logic you'd have to start putting condensers on gfci

That was the reason the rule was added to the code...a death at an outside residential AC unit, but an exception was added because some outside AC units trip GFCIs.

 

[kwired]

There is already gfci protection that has a higher leakage threshold , but everything that’s listed in 210.8 requires class A gfci protection and class A protection only has a leakage threshold of 4-6 ma . That’s why cord and plug evse still requires external gfci protection. But the internal ccid that provides the GFPE has a 20 ma threshold which isn’t class A protection. Outdoor hvac equipment will need to be able to operate with Class A protection so the hvac equipment needs manufsctured to tolerate class A gfci protection , they aren’t manufacturing protection with a higher leakage threshold because that wouldn’t be class A


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Per art 100 Definitions when NEC mentions GFCI protection it means the Class A protection.

There is also definitions for GFPE, SPGFCI, GFDI.

 

[Jaybone812]

Per art 100 Definitions when NEC mentions GFCI protection it means the Class A protection.

There is also definitions for GFPE, SPGFCI, GFDI.

I understand that and since gfci protection is class a protection that 4-6 ma threshold can not be raised . So the hvac equipment will have to adjust to operate within that threshold not adjust the leakage threshold of the gfci . I may made a typo in my last comment is I said there were already types of gfci protection with a higher leakage threshold . What I meant to say was there are other types ground fault protection that have higher thresholds .
Like the GFPE you just mentioned


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

I understand that and since gfci protection is class a protection that 4-6 ma threshold can not be raised . So the hvac equipment will have to adjust to operate within that threshold not adjust the leakage threshold of the gfci . I may made a typo in my last comment is I said there were already types of gfci protection with a higher leakage threshold . What I meant to say was there are other types ground fault protection that have higher thresholds .
Like the GFPE you just mentioned


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I might be in favor if the CMP would have allowed GFPE for the outdoor "outlets" that include these AC/heat pump units. But I did not think there was justification otherwise to require GFCI on all outdoor outlets. I think the justification for other than 5-15 and 5-20 receptacles is rather weak in most cases. If you are going to use a single electrocution event as justification - then GFCI should be required for everything regardless of conditions. The AC unit incident was caused by a missing or compromised EGC which was always great reason why 5-15 and 5-20 supplied items were a risk as they commonly have missing EGC pins on cord caps.

 

[Jaybone812]

I might be in favor if the CMP would have allowed GFPE for the outdoor "outlets" that include these AC/heat pump units. But I did not think there was justification otherwise to require GFCI on all outdoor outlets. I think the justification for other than 5-15 and 5-20 receptacles is rather weak in most cases. If you are going to use a single electrocution event as justification - then GFCI should be required for everything regardless of conditions. The AC unit incident was caused by a missing or compromised EGC which was always great reason why 5-15 and 5-20 supplied items were a risk as they commonly have missing EGC pins on cord caps.

I’m in complete agreement with you there . GFPE would be an acceptable compromise to prevent another incident with a condenser like you said . It wasn’t the incident was not the result of the condenser not having gfci protection , the incident occurred happen to do non compliant electrical installation that lacked the egc . I feel GFPE would be an accessible method of preventing another similar incident by the cmp feels differently and wants gfci. I personally feel when the 210.8(f) exception for hvac equipment expires in 2026 that condensers will still be uncooperative with gfci protection but we will see


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

I’m in complete agreement with you there . GFPE would be an acceptable compromise to prevent another incident with a condenser like you said . It wasn’t the incident was not the result of the condenser not having gfci protection , the incident occurred happen to do non compliant electrical installation that lacked the egc . I feel GFPE would be an accessible method of preventing another similar incident by the cmp feels differently and wants gfci. I personally feel when the 210.8(f) exception for hvac equipment expires in 2026 that condensers will still be uncooperative with gfci protection but we will see


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The biggest problem is with variable speed driven units. High frequency leakage is the main issue. Is a problem with other appliances that have electronic speed driven motors as well that in recent years have been required to have GFCI protection on the supply receptacle, like washers and refrigerators.

One way manufacturers have dealt with this is electrically isolating the motor and not bonding it to the EGC. I have run into washers with a limit switch that closes when back cover is removed. This switch then closes a bonding jumper to the motor. I assume the idea is to protect people from potential shock risk from the otherwise isolated motor if the cover is removed. Same appliance has too much leakage for GFCI to hold when that switch is closed. I found this on service call for a unit that was tripping GFCI. Appliance guy looked at it previously and told them get an electrician to replace the GFCI. I eventually found that the switch mount broke and switch was closed even with cover on. Would fill up with water but would trip pretty much immediately anytime the motor was supposed to run.

 

[Jaybone812]

Your 100% right about The variable speed driven motor appliances not being compatible with gfci protection . Mass created a rule 11 for the mass electrical code and that rule reads if you can prove a piece of equipment or a
Appliance is not compatible with gfci protection then the they omit the requirement for gfci protection . Then they add a 210.8 exception that tells us to divert to rule 11 for equipment not compatible with gfci protection


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jaybone812]

The biggest problem is with variable speed driven units. High frequency leakage is the main issue. Is a problem with other appliances that have electronic speed driven motors as well that in recent years have been required to have GFCI protection on the supply receptacle, like washers and refrigerators.

One way manufacturers have dealt with this is electrically isolating the motor and not bonding it to the EGC. I have run into washers with a limit switch that closes when back cover is removed. This switch then closes a bonding jumper to the motor. I assume the idea is to protect people from potential shock risk from the otherwise isolated motor if the cover is removed. Same appliance has too much leakage for GFCI to hold when that switch is closed. I found this on service call for a unit that was tripping GFCI. Appliance guy looked at it previously and told them get an electrician to replace the GFCI. I eventually found that the switch mount broke and switch was closed even with cover on. Would fill up with water but would trip pretty much immediately anytime the motor was supposed to run.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I see no valid reason to require GFCI protection for hard wired equipment, but that boat has sailed in the NEC.