Spas and 680.23(F)

[speedypetey]

I would like some comment and opinion. I am having a bit of a battle of wits over this topic.

In the opinion of the professionals on this site, is 680.23(F) applicable to the main feed to an outdoor package spa if the spa has a light factory installed?

We have all seen these spas. The little low voltage light with an open socket with two free leads going to the control panel of the spa.

"680.23 Underwater Luminaires (Lighting Fixtures)
(F) Branch-Circuit Wiring
(1) Wiring Methods Branch-circuit wiring on the supply side of enclosures and junction boxes connected to conduits run to wet-niche and no-niche luminaires (fixtures), and the field wiring compartments of dry-niche luminaires (fixtures), shall be installed using rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, liquidtight flexible nonmetallic conduit, or rigid nonmetallic conduit. Where installed on buildings, electrical metallic tubing shall be permitted, and where installed within buildings, electrical nonmetallic tubing, Type MC cable, or electrical metallic tubing shall be permitted."

"Wiring Methods Branch-circuit wiring on the supply side of enclosures and junction boxes connected to conduits run to wet-niche and no-niche luminaires (fixtures),"
There is no conduit running from the fixture so how can this apply? Besides, these are neither wet niche nor no-niche according to code definitions.

" and the field wiring compartments of dry-niche luminaires (fixtures)"
These are NOT dry niche fixtures, so how can this apply?


It is my contention that none of the parameters in 680.23 & 680.24 are applicable to the type of lights in these spas. Also that these spas are factory built and listed. The light has a feed and control built in. The sections referred to are targeting lights installed in pools.
The person I am disagreeing with says if it has a light, at all, 680.23(F) must apply and the complete circuit to the whole spa must be run in conduit back to the panel(1999/2002 NEC, not 2005 which allows MC).

Any takers???

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

Self-Contained Spa or Hot Tub. Factory-fabricated unit consisting of a spa or hot tub vessel with all water-circulating, heating, and control equipment integral to the unit. Equipment can include pumps, air blowers, heaters, lights, controls, sanitizer generators, and so forth.

Listed. Equipment, materials, or services included in a list published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic evaluation of services, and whose listing states that the equipment, material, or services either meets appropriate designated standards or has been tested and found suitable for a specified purpose.

If it's a listed unit, it's reasonable to assume that the listing agency has found the light and the conduit feeding it to be "suitable for a specified purpose."

 

[mc5w]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

I have run a switch loop for a pool light in romex which is Code because the switch loop does not affect grounding for the light.

 

[speedypetey]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

George, I do not mean the feed to the light from the control. I mean the main feed to the spa. But I do agree.


mc5w, I have no idea how this is relavant, but OK.

[ May 17, 2005, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: speedypetey ]

 

[marissa2]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

I have been told that CT know waants the feed in a conduit back to the panel in a conduit if there is a light in the tub. This was something that I haven't checked on at this time, but it does sound like a little over kill.
Lou

 

[luke warmwater]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

Originally posted by mc5w:
I have run a switch loop for a pool light in romex which is Code because the switch loop does not affect grounding for the light.

Your 'romex' is in direct violation.
The equipment ground must be insulated as per 680.23(F)(2)

 

[George Stolz]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

Really? If his supply to a junction box has a insulated grounding conductor, and the conductors from that junction box to the luminaire are insulated, why would the switch loop from the junction box to a remote switch need to be insulated?

I'm not so much arguing, just fuzzy.

 

[mdshunk]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

Speedy has a very valid question, and I'd really like an inspector to chime in on this too. I've butted heads over this issue too. Some inspectors say that if the pre manufactured spa has any light at all, you must run the circuit to the spa in conduit the whole way to the panel, just the same as if you were feeding a light by itself. Yes, it does seem like overkill but is being interpreted or misinterpreted this way in some areas.

 

[ryan_618]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

Originally posted by mc5w:
I have run a switch loop for a pool light in romex which is Code because the switch loop does not affect grounding for the light.

Really? It sounds like you put NM cable in a wet location

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

Originally posted by mc5w:
I have run a switch loop for a pool light in romex which is Code because the switch loop does not affect grounding for the light.

How and where did you pick up this switch leg?

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

speedypetey

In the 1999 cycle article 689-25 we find that conductors supplying both the light and motor that are part of the outside circuit are required to be a 12 and insulated.

In the 2002 code article 680.21 (A) (4) motors for a dwelling unit if run in a conduit it must be insulated but if part of a cable it can be uninsulated. We will talk about this some more in a minute.
In 680.23 (F) (2) the equipment grounding conductor for a underwater light requires a 12 insulated copper.
Now back to the circuit that is feeding the control panel, I have heard this debated for three years and to no resolve. The way I see it is a UF cable would work due to the fact that it is a listed piece of equipment.

The 2005 cycle in 680.21 goes back to the insulated 12 copperconductor.

To summarize I would say that in?99 and ?05 it would require a insulated conductor but in ?02 it would not.

 

[pierre]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

'05 NEC

Peter
680.23(F) refers to the SUPPLY SIDE of enclosures.

The Hot Tub is listed.

I do not see how this unit would be listed without it being tested as you would see it in the field - ready for wiring. If it comes from the factory wired as you have stated, I do not see the need for changing this wiring, it is permitted to be installed as such.

 

[jwelectric]

Re: Spas and 680.23(F)

Thank you Pierre,
After reading my post the second time I feel as I might need to add that the conductors I am talking about are the ones supplying the unit or the ones between the wall of the dwelling unit and the control panel of the unit.

The internal wiring is not to be altered.