×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

2002 NEC overruling for GFCI-protection of motors - why?

2002 NEC overruling for GFCI-protection of motors - why?

2002 NEC overruling for GFCI-protection of motors - why?

(OP)
Hi,

I'm new to this board and have a question concerning GFCI-protection of motors.  I'm not familiar with the NEC or its decision making procedures, but had the following questions:

1) Is it true that in the latest NEC codebook (2002), that the requirement for GFCI-protection of swimming pool motors for commercial/semi-commercial applications has been reversed?

2) If so, do you know what the reason for this was?

This is what I have been told:
a) There is no requirement for putting swimming pool pumps/motors on GFCI for residential homes, that this rule (680-6(d))applies only for commercial applications.
b) That the original impetus for having 680-6(d) was a concern by the Board of Health when a commercial pool pump accidentally tripped and raised health issues about unfiltered water.
c) That as of the 2002 NEC codebook, that even the commercial rule has been backed out so that now NO motor is required to be GFCI-protected.
d) That most electricians were against GFCI-protection of swimming pool motors in the first place.
e) That the reason they are against it is because the accidental tripping potential is a huge annoyance.
f) That the liklihood of a hazzardous/life-threatening situation due to not having a swimming pool pump GFCI-protected is extremely improbable.

Levithon

RE: 2002 NEC overruling for GFCI-protection of motors - why?

Looks like the GFCI requirement has been moved to 680.22(A)(5), and has been expanded to include dwelling units. All single phase plug connected motors require the protection, opposite your claim in (c) above.

RE: 2002 NEC overruling for GFCI-protection of motors - why?

Any time you want to research a change from the 99 to the 02 code you should look at these sites.  The first is the "Report on Proposals" which is all of the proposed changes, the reason that the change was proposed, the action on the proposal and the reason for the action.  The second is the "Report on Comments" which is the public comments on the action taken in the Report on Proposals.  These are must have documents for any serious study of the NEC.  They constitute the legislative history of any change.

http://www.nfpa.org/nec/TheNEC/ROPsROCs/ROPs/ROPByArticle/ROPByArticle.asp

http://www.nfpa.org/nec/TheNEC/ROPsROCs/ROCs/ROCByArticle/ROCByArticle.asp

Don(resqcapt19)

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources