ECN Forum Forums Code Related Discussion NEC & other Code issues Swimming Pool question

When I read 680.23 (A)(3) it says that the GFCI requirement for underwater luminaires should be in the branch circuit. Does this mean that a sub panel protected with a GFCI Main will not satisfy the requirements in 680.23(A)(3)? I say we still need a GFCI in the branch circuit. Note that it doesn't specify a "GFCI in the branch Circuit" when talking about the pool cover, motors or other items needing GFCI protection. Only that they must have GFCI protection.

I suspect that is just language left over from when the GFCI requirement first arrived and a feeder style was not available. I guess to be totally compliant you would need a GFCI breaker or dead front device in the light circuit but it does sound redundant.

Greg, I don't think it's a matter of an oversight on apart of the code panel. I think they prefer to have individual GFCI protection on the pool light. The code panel is rather anal about being accurate. There probably is substantial reason for leaving it in there as "branch circuit". Be interested in know what some of the other members think. Who knows, might even hear from someone on code panel 17.

I agree with George.
The folks on the Code panels are very meticulous about what they write.

I get into regular arguments with Mechanical types who think that the requirement for a receptacle within 25 feet of Heating and Air Conditioning units should apply to all HVAC equipment.
The Code panel wrote it the way that they did to deliberately exclude ventilation (fans) since there is never a need for portable test or service equipment to be plugged in when working on a fan.
Heating and Air Conditioning units have controls and refrigerant lines that need to be evacuated...fan motors do not.

If they are calling for individual GFCI protection on the branch circuit that's exactly what they want there.

I have to agree with George. The Pool lighting circuit protected by a GFCI on the branch circuit. I have not had anyone say that it is protected by the pool sub panel.

As to Ghosts comment regarding fans, as he said, there is no reason for a receptacle within 25'.

I understand the rule but if you trust GFCIs one in the feeder should provide the same protection. With pool lights moving to low voltage LEDs the question might be moot anyway. A GFCI on the primary to the transformer will not provide any protection on the secondary anyway.

Greg– you are correct as usual, but in this case I suspect that the panel left it alone so that a problem on the circuit would only shut down the circuit. (Hopefully) This would allow the rest of the pool equipment to continue running. I'm sure the GFCI on the panel should trip at the 4-6ma level so who knows which one will trip. I'm still enforcing branch circuit GFCI when I inspect. Don't need to stand before 12 honest men/women and justify why I didn't make the right call. 🤪

I agree with you that as long it is there, I am enforcing any GFCI rule. That is the most important innovation to save lives in the history of electricity.
I am always arguing with people about refrigerators and sump pumps that trip GFCIs. They are broken and should be repaired or retired, not bootlegged on a non-GFCI circuit.

Put one of those old style 2 prong adapters on the plug, ground the pigtail and loop it through a current probe on a scope, fight is over. On a sump pump, your clamp works to make your point. On a fridge, A/C or whatever, you are seeing the electrical representation of a thunderstorm inside that compressor.
Then I ask, "wanna unhook that ground and hold the pigtail"?
Still no takers.

Yes, I don't need to stand next to, or with George, and try to explain why I went away from the NEC.

As to Greg's analogy, I add..."you want to be a conductor??" of electricity,, not the train.