Someone told me that a 50 amp. hot tub does not have to be GFI protected. Just bonded with a #6 bond wire to the panel. (Also with a disconnect.) He claims that only 15 and 20 amp. circuits require gfi protection. Being I am not as indebth to the NEC as most of you. Could someone please tell me if the advice I am given is true..

James

James Article 680.22 A (5) (2002 NEC)
"Receptacles that supply pool pump motors and that are rated 15 or 20 amperes, 120 volt through 240 volts, single phase, shall be provided with GFCI protection." It is section II permenatly installed pools but both section 680.42 and 680.43 reference compliance to section I and II.

There is no recep. its 50 amp. hard wired to the unit. This is whats puzzling me.

I don't think a hot tub is required by the NEC to have GFCI protection if it is hard wired. If it is cord and plug connected, 680.43(A)(4) will require GFCI protection. The listing instructions may also require GFCI protection.
Don(resqcapt19)

Every Hot-tub and Spa I have seen says in the instructions if hard wired use a 50 GFCI breaker, a lot of the units that can run on 120 volts have a gfci built right into the cord.
I wouldn't want to put one in without it being GFCI protected.

_Mark

This gets a little clearer (I think) in the 2002 code. 680.4 requires compliance with parts I & IV of the article, part IV is the section that deals with hot tubs & spas.

680.42 has some additional wiring requirements for outdoor installations.

680.44 requires GFCI protection. Of course, theres the usual cast of exceptions.

Every hard wired tub I've seen has GFCI protection mandated in the instructions.

Im not sure of the brand but there is a 50 amp disconnect with built in gfi protection made for hot tubs. I see it at my supply house every day, let me know if you want more info.

In the code Handbook under 680.44, It says, "The requirements of 680.44 specify that field-assembled Spas and Hot tubs with heater loads of 50 amps or less are to be GFCI protected"
I cannot imagine putting one of these units in without GFCI protection, Lloyds of London wouldnt have that kind of money for the insurances and the lawsuits.
-Mark

motor,
You are correct, 680.44 does require GFCI protection for the hot tub outlet. I missed that.
don

That is what I thought.. Just have to becareful who you take advice from.. I mean to say many of the older homes here on long island are run on a 60 amp service. So lets take that service and feed a hot tub! It would be stupid not to GFI protect it..

James

James,

Remember that free advice is worth what you pay for it & that applies to this forum also.
However, at least on this forum, someone will jump up & get the right answer eventually. I don't think anyone who posts answers here is right 100% of the time, though I can think of a few who are at 98% or better.

Tom

Ain't that the truth.. But on here the chances of getting the right answer is far better then the answers I get from others I know.. Unfortunatly, I have spent many years around the wrong kind of people.. Just amazes me how I came out so well.. Guess I learned by watching there mistakes / stupidity.

James

James,

Your comments about learning from others mistakes brings to mind another old saying "Good judgement comes from experiance. Experiance comes from poor judgement."

Tom

[This message has been edited by Tom (edited 03-20-2002).]

Then that would mean I do poor work.. That is far from the truth.. If I have the slighest question in my head I will research the code in debth before starting that paticular work. I cut no corners or spare any expense. There was even one time where my screw up on estimating, put me in the hole and I lost money on the job. But in the end the customer was happy the inspector was happy and I was able to sleep at night.. So far out oif about 100 inspections over the past 5 years. I have never failed one of them. Due to my work. There was only one instance where I had to go on to a job that another electrician had done. The inspector had an inspection and failed misserably. So I went and repaired exactly what was on the inspectors list. The major problem was a sub panel in a pool house. They ran a 2/o aluminum to a 100 amp subpanel and cut the threads to fit it under a breaker. Also the neturals and grounds were under the same bars/screws. So I fixed just what he failed it for. But there was no isolated ground going back to the main panel some 300' away. I knew that was a problem so when they came to reinspect I pointed it out to him and asked why it was not put on his original list. It was just an oversight on the other inspector. But he added it in. That was the only time I failed an inspection. The work was not originally done by me, I just pointed out the violation when they came to reinspect. Needless to say that inspector likes to inspect my job's.

James

Maybe we'll amend that to "on rare occaisions, good judgement comes from good experiance." Usually though, for most of us, we have to make a few mistakes, those that are paying attention learn from them.

Tom

motor good call I guess i should have kept reading 680.44 Protection I really missed that, thanks.

I will not say I am perfect or that I know it all.. Anyone who does, is full of it.. I mean some times I will cut a corner now and then.. Ie if I dont have a ground screw on hand I will ground it some other way. or maybe I will put a piece of white tape around a piece of NM when only the outer shielding is cut.. Little things we all cut corners on. But when it comes to anything major or a matter of safty, I never cut corners. As I am sure we all do in here. But as we all see far too often wether it be on the job or by Joe's violation pic's. Those are the persons who have trained me as a greenie' basically the majority of the knowledge I learned from them is how not to do things..

James

Isolated ground going back to the main panel? I hope you don't mean the #8 bond. I still see people running this back to the main panel. Otherwise if you mean grounding conductor you do not need to run one to a seperate building. You can ground it at that loction. As for the white tape you'll need to get some yellow for the new romex!

Sorry Insulated ground. For that 100 amp sub panel if I remember correctly I think I ran 4 #2's back to the main panel. or I may of downsized the ground to a #4. either way it was an insulated ground..

Had something else on my mind when I typed isolated..

James

I am just saying that if it is a sub panel in a seperate building you need no ground back to the main panel, you can install a new ground in that building.

The problem was that the pool house also had water running from the main house. Or so we think.. But the inspector said if there is the possibility of water running from the main house the sub panel needed to be grounded to the main panel. I assume the concern there is the different grounds..

I'm sorry I still don't get it.

I guess I am going to have to look this up when I have more time for the exact code he was refering too.. So in the mean time this is a guess.. Lets assume the ground to the water pipe is lost some how and the pipe becomes energized. I guess the concern that the energized pipe will go to the pool house where mixxed with water zap.. Then again it poses the same problem with the shower in the main house. But then again what the inspector wants the inspector gets. It did not matter much to me as for it was a T&M job..

James

Interesting thread.

2 concerns, GFI & Grounding...

1)>>>>>
as to GFI's, well i can hardwire without one in 680....NEC compliant, legal, however a possible listing violation? hmmmmmm....

yet a certain 3 ph pool motor in my town endures a regular tusami....
/tilt//hack/ pitoowwee...////
rationale check please.....

2)>>>
pool sub-panel per 250-32? we'll ground the living daylights outta the pool, motor, assoc equip & NOT run back to the service?
Voltage Gradient....??well we can't have dwelling g-faults spike the pool???

were it a gas station, we most certainly would ( haz-loc) run the GEC back to the service equip....bond everything along the way.....
I'm soooooo : confused:
rationale please...